From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Sep 30 21:16:36 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 03:16:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: "Snowden isn't just about Surveillance. It is much, Much, MUCH worse... In-Reply-To: <03f701cebe0b$a887e8c0$f997ba40$@gmail.com> References: <03f701cebe0b$a887e8c0$f997ba40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 20:33 30/09/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Language: en-us > >"Snowden isn't just about Surveillance. It is much, Much, MUCH worse..." >http://wp.me/pJQl5-cS Thank you Michael for publishing the reality's real stuff. The cyberspace is only a fifth military/police theater (land, see, air, space, cyber). The same rules, concerns, behaviors .. apply with the same risks and threats for our digital nudity. This is why we all need our own Personal Reality Information System Mononitor. FYI have initiated a DSA, Digital Security and Awareness, discussion zone at the IUCG (http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness). jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 1 10:25:24 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 19:55:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net><030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com><035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52234E54.5000805@itforchange.net> To add to this very important discussion, when we seek new privacy norms and frameworks, we must also first inspect the current regimes. Just because vested interests tell us, and some of us are naive to believe it, it is of course not true that there are no existing 'policy' regimes around the global Internet. What are these. Just yesterday or so, Facebook said that it is updating its privacy provisions. This follows a settlement with a US court. Quoting Facebook spokesperson, " Facebook is proposing this update as part of a settlement in a court case relating to advertising." We can see here that the US state is setting the global privacy norms. For others, it is a take it or leave it. Next, the Trans- Atlantic Trade Agreement to be negotiated between the US and the EU will see some serious give and take on what would become the global privacy frameworks. The give and take, in the secret and narrowly self-interest driven processes of pluri lateral trade agreements, would largely be of a non-normative nature. It will be more of what do I gain, what can I live with, what people will say when they know, kind of stuff..... All this of a kind much worse than what happens in multilateral settings. The above kind of processes will soon set what would be more or less the final privacy frameworks for the global Internet. Do those who so passionately argue for keeping governemnts away from 'Internet regulation', which includes developing and enforcing global privacy frameworks, really not realise that governemnts, as above, are already doing it, and solidly so. And the same governments who are 'doing it' so enthusiastically (including through funds) encourage the 'multistakeholder constituency' to fight against regulation of the Internet, which basically serves the very useful purpose for these government of keeping the developjng countires away from the levers of global governance. This is turn helps consolidate the North's geo-economic and geo-political (and geo-cultural) advantage (more of the US than of others). So, in whose hands is the civil society really playing, whether they realise it or not. In all that is happening on the global privacy regulation front, as described above, developing countries are simply spectators. They are told - when we are done, we will let you know. And then, as was done with CoE's cyber-security agreement or is currently being done with the OECD's Internet policy making principles, we will ask you to sign on the pre-agreed policy framework, which you bloody well will do, if you do not want to be knocked off the global Internet's 'best opportunities'. I heard the term 'politics of justice' mentioned on this list. Global justice demands that the bogey of the US and its Northern follower governments, and of the big global business (and all their allies), stealthy developing Internet regulation and architecture, behind the smoke screen of the Internet freedom and multistakeholderism, is called. This calls for seeking democratic global governance of the Internet, while being very careful as we suggest and develop new institutions. Above I discuss just how privacy frameworks - regulation and architecture - for the global Internet is being developed, and what are the stakes for those who seek global justice. Similar process are under way in terms of many other social, economic, cultural and political issues, of deep importance to the developing countries, and to marginalised populations. This is the imperative for democratising global governance of the Internet. Bring out in the open which is happenning in the background, and have a greater chance of normative discussions, and greater civil society influence. parminder On Sunday 01 September 2013 02:04 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > not sure I am as pessimistic about this as both of you. There are > plenty of examples in history where international agreements have > regulated matters where countries have agreed, for the greater good, > to regulate or stop previous actions. The Geneva Convention is one > example, outlawing of poison gases after WW1 (worked for a while) is > another. > > I am sure also that regularly in trade treaties countries give up > certain actions in return for other advantages. > > In the case of the Internet, it may well be that an open available > trusted global network - which can only be achieved if espionage is > contained - is the greater good that leads to a decent regulatory regime. > > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 6:07 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; IRP > Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and > some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation > > McTim wrote: > >> Am I happy >> that the US snoops on both domestic and foreign voice and data >> traffic? No, certainly not. Do I think that any kind of treaty or >> int'l framework would stop them? Again the answer is no, certainly >> not. > > I agree. > > The problem cannot be solved without effective encryption. > > Some kind of treaty or other international framework or other form of > international cooperation might however help us get to the point where > communications via the Internet are routinely encrypted in an > effective manner. > > Greetings, > Norbert > _______________________________________________ > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 1 10:47:10 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 20:17:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] How to end human rights violating communcations surveillance (was Re: Position by IT for Change...) In-Reply-To: <20130901040132.65217d8a@quill> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> <035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> <20130901040132.65217d8a@quill> Message-ID: <5223536E.8000601@itforchange.net> I agree with Norbert that the cost of doing surveillance has to be increased through appropriate technological means, to bring it closer to costs that existing before ICTs made it a kid's game as Snowden would say, to see anyone's communication with a few strokes of the key pad.... This is a course that should be systematically pursued... However, I am in agreement with Ian that treaties are useful and needed, and that countries to give in to get something else in return, and all of it could result in greater global public good. To respond to Norbert's specific doubt, about what has US to benefit from conceding on its global surveillance activities, I think they have a great lot to achieve. Like in no other business before, US has a preponderant dominance in global Internet business. It has a lot to gain if international agreements help develop some level of global norms, frameworks and rules of at least /some level/ /of/ cross-national harmony if not homogeneity on how the global Internet basically works, and what can be expected by and granted to all global players. No other country has more to gain through such 'global agreements' as the US's economic interests have. Earlier, the US thought that they will bring about such 'uniformity' through steam-rolling what it framed as a global Internet freedom agenda, which was always clearly a trade and political agenda, and was always dubious... The limitations of that strategy is increasingly clear. They would soon realise that they have to get into global agreements if they have to keep ruling the global Internet. That is what the US has to gain. In a write up last year or so, I made a distinction between regime development phase and regime enforcement phase. Regime development phase is when the basic rules of the game are being developed. This is the phase currently with global Internet governance, In this phase, US wants others, especially developing countries to be kept away, and seeks to avoid discussions about global agreements. (MUltistakeholderism is a very useful device for this purpose.) In areas like trade and intellectual property, as Norbert rightly points out, the regime is already formed. US and its allies have defined the rules of the game. They now want these rules to be globally enforced, of course to US's advantage. That is the game. This is what I call as the second stage, the regime enforcement stage. In global Internet governance, at some time, after the regime is well developed as per the dominant countries' interest, we will see the regime enforcement stage. UIS and others will suddenly say, well we must get serious now, twe really need some global rules and the such.... The question is, should civil society play the game of the dominant forces, or, as they say in economics, try counter-cyclical measures... parminder On Sunday 01 September 2013 07:31 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Ian Peter wrote: > >> not sure I am as pessimistic about this as both of you. There are >> plenty of examples in history where international agreements have >> regulated matters where countries have agreed, for the greater good, >> to regulate or stop previous actions. The Geneva Convention is one >> example, outlawing of poison gases after WW1 (worked for a while) is >> another. >> >> I am sure also that regularly in trade treaties countries give up >> certain actions in return for other advantages. >> >> In the case of the Internet, it may well be that an open available >> trusted global network - which can only be achieved if espionage is >> contained - is the greater good that leads to a decent regulatory >> regime. > I see two major problems with this optimistic scenario: > > On one hand the world trade system is already largely designed around > the vision of the US and like-minded countries on how the world trade > system should work, and the US is already a very central node in this > world trade system. The US already has pretty much all of the advantages > that a country could possibly have. I don't see what “other advantages” > the US could possibly be offered in exchange for the US agreeing to > give up the NSA's foreign surveillance activities which are obviously > very important from the perspective of the US government. > > On the other hand, a lot of whatever trust that people used to have for > the US as a “democratic country” that claims to be strongly committed to > human rights has been permanently destroyed. This loss of credibility > affects not only US government representatives and by extension > government representatives from other Western countries. After all the > crap with for example Microsoft claiming “Your Privacy Is Our Priority” > while at the same time secretly cooperating with the NSA's efforts to > undermine our privacy, every reasonable and well-informed person will > similarly distrust technology vendors. > > Add to this that the US concerns about terrorist threats etc are not > just a matter of mere paranoia. It would not be reasonable for the US to > agree a simple and straightforward principle like never again wanting > to know the contents of conversations of people outside the US. The US > will have to insist that in situations of legitimate suspicion of plans > for terrorist activities, surveillance activities will have to be > conducted. Regardless of how the rules for handling that kind of > exceptional situations would be designed precisely, if those rules meet > both the requirements of international human rights law and the > requirement of providing effective means of surveillance for suspected > terrorists, those rules are not going to be totally simple and > straightforward. Consequently, although certainly necessary, such rules > are not going to help much in regard to rebuilding the trust that has > been destroyed. > > I conclude that without trustworthy efforts to create effective > technical protections of communications privacy, a “trusted global > network” cannot be achieved in the post-Snowden world. > > Nota bene, I'm not advocating for trying to make surveillance totally > impossible. > > What we IMO need in the post-Snowden world is > > 1) trustworthy end-to-end encryption of all non-public Internet > communication content, > > 2) trustworthy protection of the software on the computers and other > communication devices against remote compromise, > > 3) redesigned communication protocols which ensure that at no point in > the communication channel between the endpoints, information about both > communication endpoints is visible in unencrypted form, and > > 4) trustworthy anti-surveillance monitoring which would likely detect > the problem in the case of a system compromise that results in > significant quantities of communication channel endpoint information > leaking out. > > When all of that has been achieved, surveillance of the communications > content and communications metadata of specific persons will still be > possible, but it'll be expensive enough that cost economics will force > it to be limited to specific persons where there is significant reason > to consider them a major threat. > > It is the human rights violating automated mass surveillance which must > be brought to an end. > > Greetings, > Norbert > _______________________________________________ > 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 drc at virtualized.org Sun Sep 1 16:11:41 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 13:11:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <0MSF0003SFVU1WA0@nk11p00mm-smtpin014.mac.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3618BF76-EACA-46D0-AE76-2879720D56D6@virtualized.org> <0MSF0003SFVU1WA0@nk11p00mm-smtpin014.mac.com> Message-ID: <31D02B54-B533-4FDA-A06A-38E91875843E@virtualized.org> On Aug 31, 2013, at 8:03 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: >> Because the usefulness of IPv6 addresses (like IPv4 addresses) is constrained by network topology, not politics or whether they feel good, thus for the Internet to actually scale, you need them to be allocated by service providers, not politicians? > where to you take that Stakeholders are only made of "politicians"? Sorry, where did I say "Stakeholders" are made only of politicians? > This is exactly the opposite of my position. To be honest, I'm unclear as to what your position actually is. > Your http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad gives some (not recent) but clear links about the political dependance of the governance of the IANA. To repeat the common refrain, "IANA is a set of functions, currently performed by ICANN under contract to the US Dept. of Commerce, NTIA." As such, it is obvious there is some politics associated with "the IANA". However, you were talking about routing, not about the IANA. My point was that the ITU model of address allocation moves away from the network topologic address allocation model and as such, is less scalable (at least using current routing technology). I'm unaware of the civil society address allocation model so withhold comment. > I particularly like now your affirmation (I share in part) of the need for the Internet to scale that IPs are allocated by ISPs. And do you believe the ITU or civil society are ISPs? > However, I am not sure what RIRs, NRO, ICANN and the USGov have already fully understood and accepted that subsidiarity. Can you provide any evidence they have not? > Look, you are no more the IANA head, paid by ICANN and ultimately reporting to the USGov as you described the things at that time. Here, you are supposed to help the Civil Society members understand how the other stakeholders, as you learned them, see the common world, and therefore how we can jointly uncover a deeper consensus than the apparent oppositions. Thanks for letting me know what my role is. > OpenStand is a strategy of business take-over of the internet. We disagree. > we all have to accept that architectural requirements result from historic/economic/egotistical choices and are therefore political Actually, the architecture of the Internet (at least beyond the datagram model) was mostly driven by what worked at the time, even if it wasn't ideal to meet 'historic/economic/egotistical' requirements. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Sep 1 17:37:19 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 23:37:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> <20130831181123.4660efa2@quill> Message-ID: <20130901233719.2f8506d8@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: > > Definition: Internet governance is the development and > > application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making > > procedures, and programmes that shape the of the > > Internet. > > IMHO you are missing the governance's true role which is neither the > use (this is the short term operance's mission) nor the care of the > evolution (that is concertance long term architectonic > responsibility), but the mid-term management of the internet. My perception of the Internet is similar to WGIG's in that I see the Internet getting used and evolving, but I don't see it being subject to management. In my opinion that lack of management is a feature: The Internet has been designed for not requiring centralized management. > What is discussed when talking of the "death of the internet" are two > changes of paradigm. Talking of the "death of the internet" is actually pretty ridiculous IMO. Among the plausible interpretations of what is going on, the most dramatic would be that some paradigms of Internet governance could be going through a foundational crisis from which some of them might emerge either rejuvenated or dead. Furthermore, some people's trust in some or all of the endorsers of the “OpenStand” declaration may have died. But the Internet itself is certainly alive and well. > > Note: Governments, civil society and the private sector are all > > involved in Internet governance in various roles. > > You are missing International organizations in the 4-lateral MSist > governance. If the role of international organizations is to facilitate discussion and coordination among governments in regard to their roles in Internet governance, with opportunities for members of other stakeholder groups to participate in the discussions, why should “international organizations” be listed explicitly any more than say the IGC which has such a role for civil society? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Sep 2 04:54:20 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:54:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: How to end human rights violating communcations surveillance (was Re: Position by IT for Change...) In-Reply-To: <5223536E.8000601@itforchange.net> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> <035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> <20130901040132.65217d8a@quill> <5223536E.8000601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130902105420.796d51b4@quill> Parminder wrote: > I agree with Norbert that the cost of doing surveillance has to be > increased through appropriate technological means, to bring it closer > to costs that existing before ICTs made it a kid's game as Snowden > would say, to see anyone's communication with a few strokes of the > key pad.... > > This is a course that should be systematically pursued... > > However, I am in agreement with Ian that treaties are useful and > needed, and that countries to give in to get something else in > return, and all of it could result in greater global public good. I agree with all of the above; I just don't think that the specific objective of getting the US to agree to stop their current (human rights violating) transborder surveillance activities is achievable via a treaty process. > To respond to Norbert's specific doubt, about what has US to benefit > from conceding on its global surveillance activities, I think they > have a great lot to achieve. Like in no other business before, US has > a preponderant dominance in global Internet business. It has a lot to > gain if international agreements help develop some level of global > norms, frameworks and rules of at least /some level/ /of/ > cross-national harmony if not homogeneity on how the global Internet > basically works, and what can be expected by and granted to all > global players. No other country has more to gain through such > 'global agreements' as the US's economic interests have. Currently those objectives are satisfied to a very great extent already in the absence of an Internet-specific treaty. It is not plausible to me that the US could possibly in the current kind of situation be willing to make significant concessions in a treaty process in order to achieve objectives which are satisfied already without a treaty. Of course this situation might change. It might happen that the current efforts by many actors (led and coordinated to a significant extent by ISOC), to prevent a gradual fragmentation of the Internet along national boundaries, might fail. I certainly wouldn't want to encourage such a process of “balkanisation”, and I hope that it won't happen, but if it starts happening to a significant extent, it will profoundly change the global geopolitics of Internet governance, possibly even to the extent that the US might be willing to make significant concessions in order to prevent such a cancer from spreading further. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Sep 2 05:56:05 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:56:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting) In-Reply-To: <20130901233719.2f8506d8@quill> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> <20130831181123.4660efa2@quill> <20130901233719.2f8506d8@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 jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Sep 2 05:01:03 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:01:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <31D02B54-B533-4FDA-A06A-38E91875843E@virtualized.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3618BF76-EACA-46D0-AE76-2879720D56D6@virtualized.org> <0MSF0003SFVU1WA0@nk11p00mm-smtpin014.mac.com> <31D02B54-B533-4FDA-A06A-38E91875843E@virtualized.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 daniel at digsys.bg Mon Sep 2 06:55:12 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:55:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3618BF76-EACA-46D0-AE76-2879720D56D6@virtualized.org> <0MSF0003SFVU1WA0@nk11p00mm-smtpin014.mac.com> <31D02B54-B533-4FDA-A06A-38E91875843E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <52246E90.1070505@digsys.bg> On 02.09.13 12:01, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 22:11 01/09/2013, David Conrad wrote: > >>> Your http://icannwiki.com/index.php/David_Conrad >>> gives some (not >>> recent) but clear links about the political dependance of the >>> governance of the IANA. >> >> To repeat the common refrain, "IANA is a set of functions, currently >> performed by ICANN under contract to the US Dept. of Commerce, >> NTIA." As such, it is obvious there is some politics associated with >> "the IANA". However, you were talking about routing, not about the >> IANA. My point was that the ITU model of address allocation moves >> away from the network topologic address allocation model and as such, >> is less scalable (at least using current routing technology). I'm >> unaware of the civil society address allocation model so withhold >> comment. > > OK. The point here was not on the topology itself and on the > comparison of technical merits, them being supposed equals. It was > only about the acknowledged or claimed equal legitimacy of every > stakeholder category to be involved in IP addressing. What you imply > is (please correct me if I am wrong): > > 1. there is a network and an ITU topologic address allocation model. > Do you know the URL of their current description of reference? > > 2. the favored one is favored as more scalable in using the current > routing technology. Is that not an incitation to statUS-quo and an > opposition to R&D (this is the matter being discussed in this thread)? > Does the IANA political control by the NTIA affect this position? > > 3. at least three Civil Society address-allocation-model discussions > have been engaged with ITU after the denial of ICANN to discuss the > point with At-Larges. The father of datagram proposed one. The now > deceased CS society leader, Francis Muget, was appointed in part by > the ITU to produce an ITU IANA complement project that would suit the > CS. My organization (Intlnet) met with ITU several times on the matter > and produced a proposition for an ITU-I IPv6 addressing authority > plan, integrating a response to different Information Society concerns. This is all an interesting topic for discussion. Let's hope it will not be diluted.. I have an issue with your point 2. The Internet is what it is and enjoys the success it has primarily because, it does not *force* anyone to incur any costs they do not wish to have. Therefore, The Internet has always favored "what works" -- one way, or another. The desire to present this as an outcome of someone's political advances is just wishful thinking in my opinion --- but I understand this is typical for politics. If that (undefined) R&D takes place, under as I understand the political guidance of various .. let's call them "interested parties" -- then this will surely result in additional costs imposed on everyone in Internet, as routing datagrams is Internet's core functionality. To give just two examples: after a lot of research and experimentation, who useful technologies were developed for improving Internet's security: RPKI and DNSSEC. RPKI is all about making the routing protocols more secure and dependable and DNSSEC is respectively improving DNS: both core components of what The Internet is. Yet, because both impose additional costs on participants, they are not universally available or not even accepted. Despite this, the Internet still continues to function. So, even if these is political opposition to any R&D (1), fact is it does not matter. The "opposition" in Internet is based on purely practical and cost reasons. The Internet *is* different from other networks in this regard and this apparently scares all the "interested parties". As for your point 3... it is interesting, that after you cannot convince the Internet population to accept your behavior models, you go to ITU, believing that private-Government structure can do something about it? They could, if they owned the Internet, as they did all the communication networks before, including those experiments in France. Is this your understanding of "civil society"? (1) - everyone of the "interested parties" is very much in favor of R&D, as long as it is their very own R&D, resulting in their very own IPR and control. This is in the core of the reason why those parties can never agree. >>> we all have to accept that architectural requirements result from >>> historic/economic/egotistical choices and are therefore political >> >> Actually, the architecture of the Internet (at least beyond the >> datagram model) was mostly driven by what worked at the time, even if >> it wasn't ideal to meet 'historic/economic/egotistical' requirements. > > > We agree. > > - yes, the architectural model was actually dependent on the datagram > model adapted by ARPA from Louis Pouzin. This was a French Gov > political choice (at that time, we ran in France public services on > two other than datagram only architectures, and a sole other State > sponsored enhanced datagram architecture). In my country, the Government was fiercely opposed to anything Internet related. So was the incumbent Telecom. I will not be surprised to hear today, if they claim exactly the opposite. In fact, they do. This is politics. > > - yes, the architecture of the Internet has remained the same since > its very first day (1.1.83) due to the political/commercial opposition > from the statUS-quo. You imply the US had supported the development of the public Internet. They have not. The US actually tried very hard to prevent it, as did most other governments. > > The IGF mission is to help enhanced cooperation projects toward the > emergence of new technologies for the Information society. At this > stage, there are two possible sources of such an emergence: > > - the private commercial stakeholders category through OpenStand. > - the Civil Society through an OpenUse coalition/cooperation effort > that I support. One question remains unanswered here: did the typical Internet participant ask for your "help"? Do they really need it? Do they care? > > Actually, we can help one another. This is why we are trying to keep > and encourage an open and positive dialog. Both sides fear rogue and > confusing elements, especially on the Civil Side because we are far > younger and weaker as a structure and global community and due to the > diversity of the FLOSS culture You mean, the "private commercial stakeholder" and the "Civil Society" can help each other? Sure, you both can. What about those who are the Internet? Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Sep 2 10:36:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:36:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> <20130831181123.4660efa2@quill> <20130901233719.2f8506d8@quill> Message-ID: <20130902163642.29cd19be@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: > At 23:37 01/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> JFC Morfin wrote: >> > What is discussed when talking of the "death of the internet" are >> > two changes of paradigm. >> >> Talking of the "death of the internet" is actually pretty ridiculous >> IMO. Among the plausible interpretations of what is going on, the >> most dramatic would be that some paradigms of Internet governance >> could be going through a foundational crisis from which some of them >> might emerge either rejuvenated or dead. Furthermore, some people's >> trust in some or all of the endorsers of the “OpenStand” declaration >> may have died. > This is an extreme but very interesting idea. > Since the OpenStand signatories and endorsers represent what makes > the internet and data processing today world (except ICANN and > Unicode), could you please be a little bit more explicit? > > In addition, if those (IEEE, ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C, RIRs) are dead – I didn't call them dead, I only wrote that some people might, on the basis of OpenStand's unbalanced market oriented focus, have stopped trusting them. > their internet is necessarily gone with them, unless some other > organizations have taken over? > >> But the Internet itself is certainly alive and well. > Since your position is certainly consistent, you need to give a > definition of that internet. I personally distinguish between 1) Internet in a narrow technical sense: The set of devices that are able to exchange Internet Protocol datagrams via the largest connected component of Internet Protocol networks, together with all the technical infrastructure that is dedicated to the purpose of enabling them to do so. 2) Internet in a broader technical sense: Short for “internetwork”, any set of interconnected autonomous packet switching networks. 3) Internet as an information and communication system: the global information and communication system that: (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein. (This is slightly modified from a definition adopted in 1995 by the US Federal Networking Council) 4) Internet in the full systemic sense: All of the above together with the social and economic phenomena that drive the uses of that information and communication system or systems, and that shape how it's all evolving. In my opinion, “the Internet itself is certainly alive and well” is a true statement for each of the above four ways in which I think the word “Internet” can reasonably be used. >> If the role of international organizations is to facilitate >> discussion and coordination among governments in regard to their >> roles in Internet governance, with opportunities for members of >> other stakeholder groups to participate in the discussions, why >> should “international organizations” be listed explicitly any more >> than say the IGC which has such a role for civil society? > From this answer of yours I infer that you deny International > organizations a structural main importance in the information > society. This is an interesting position. No I just didn't want to make the assertion that they currently have a significant specific and distinct role in Internet governance. Currently the list of actors with such a distinct role is IMO: Governments, civil society, private sector, standardization organizations, specialized Internet governance institutions. Maybe at some point in the future one or more international organizations will take on significant specific roles in the field of Internet governance that are significantly distinct from their current role of coordinating actions of governments. Then I will update my list to reflect the new reality. > Anyway, if you deny international organizations to be a stakeholder > category, where do you locate the IGF? The IGF is a place where all kinds of stakeholders meet and talk, including representatives of international organizations (who in the IGF context are appropriately grouped as part of the “governments” stakeholder category), and including people who don't fit neatly in any particular categorization of stakeholders. > I know you want to update the Tunis agenda, Huh? There are a lot of things that I want to do (more than I could possibly find time for), but updating the Tunis agenda is not one of them. I may have implied that I don't feel a need for my thinking to be stuck in the precise wording of the Tunis Agenda, but as an international softlaw instrument, I don't see any particular need for the Tunis Agenda to be updated. > but this last point seems like a big update, no? In the “working definition of Internet governance”, the Tunis Agenda lists three stakeholder categories as having roles in Internet governance: Governments, private sector, civil society. I honestly cannot recall having suggested that that three stakeholder categories model should be changed. If I have ever suggested that, that would have to have been before I read Jeremy Malcolm's insightful and in my opinion absolutely convincing analysis of that question. There is a significant trend towards recognizing “technical community” as a fourth stakeholder category. I don't see this as having a convincing justification however, and I believe that the introduction this additional stakeholder category has not been particularly helpful, and that it would be better for technical community people to engage as part of either “government” (those who participate in an official, government-endorsed role) or “civil society” (those who have ensured their independence from government interests and from business interests that relate to the topics that they're engaging on) or “private sector” (those representing a company with the ability to be a change agent in ways directly related to the topics under discussion), or “no clear stakeholder category affiliation” (all others), and list “technical community” membership as being on a different dimension, similar to how someone with expertise in international law might list being a member of that community as a qualification rather than as a stakeholder group affiliation. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Sep 2 10:51:43 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:51:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <52246E90.1070505@digsys.bg> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3618BF76-EACA-46D0-AE76-2879720D56D6@virtualized.org> <0MSF0003SFVU1WA0@nk11p00mm-smtpin014.mac.com> <31D02B54-B533-4FDA-A06A-38E91875843E@virtualized.org> <52246E90.1070505@digsys.bg> Message-ID: At 12:55 02/09/2013, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >This is all an interesting topic for discussion. Let's hope it will >not be diluted.. > >>2. the favored one is favored as more scalable in using the current >>routing technology. Is that not an incitation to statUS-quo and an >>opposition to R&D (this is the matter being discussed in this >>thread)? Does the IANA political control by the NTIA affect this position? > >I have an issue with your point 2. You will note that I have no point 2, but a question. This question is not about the internet technology, but about the routing strategy and the attitude towards innovation in that area. So I go through your response. >The Internet is what it is and enjoys the success it has primarily >because, it does not *force* anyone to incur any costs they do not >wish to have. Let admit this point in order to follow your reasoning. However I foundamentally disagree with it (and this is my main point): statUS-quo is precisely against architectonic R&D that could reduce the costs and increase the internet effilience, but it would also certainly modify the market shares and the operational controls. It would introduce many new operators. It would probably shake Google end be detrimental to NSA and to the ICANN industry. >Therefore, The Internet has always favored "what works" -- one way, >or another. The desire to present this as an outcome of someone's >political advances is just wishful thinking in my opinion --- but I >understand this is typical for politics. This would call for an entire review of the IETF, ICANN, involved SDOs and WSIS technical proceedings. >If that (undefined) R&D takes place, under as I understand the >political guidance of various .. let's call them "interested >parties" -- then this will surely result in additional costs imposed >on everyone in Internet, as routing datagrams is Internet's core functionality. hmm? Do you mean that all what has been developped between 1971 and 1983, and further (?) that belong to the care of the Internet technology has been developped by un-interested parties? What is actually interesting is that this R&D takes place everyday (FLOSS). What actually costs (200 billions a year) is the black stakholder category no one ever talks about (why?). Making internet crime more difficult with a more architecturally secure architecture (please do talk of DNSSEC, RPKI, etc. patches, we are among professionnals) might save upto $ 100 a year to each of us. >To give just two examples: after a lot of research and >experimentation, who useful technologies were developed for >improving Internet's security: RPKI and DNSSEC. RPKI is all about >making the routing protocols more secure and dependable and DNSSEC >is respectively improving DNS: both core components of what The Internet is. Yes. RPKI and DNSSEC are two long political histories, negiciated by employees of US or allied countries, contractors or sub-contractors (how many CISCO RFC a year)? Civil Society has never been allowed to participate, and actually been interested in participating because these technologies are architectonical violations justified by the demand of centralized control, architecturally a way to curb operators, and technically inadequate to civil users - or even opposed to their interests as the NSA shows the possibility. Please again, do not protest. We both are in the DNS game, myself from the very begining. We know that we know. >Yet, because both impose additional costs on participants, they are >not universally available or not even accepted. Not every RFC is a standard. >Despite this, the Internet still continues to function. Sorry, I miss the point. Or is it that despite many things, the world continue to sruvive. What you and me wanted until RFC 6852 came out was to make the Internet work better. This still is the case for us, while OpenStand have accepted that their priority actually was to make the internet sell better. Now, this has clarified we can better talk and cooperate. >So, even if these is political opposition to any R&D (1), fact is it >does not matter. The "opposition" in Internet is based on purely >practical and cost reasons. The Internet *is* different from other >networks in this regard and this apparently scares all the >"interested parties". I have somme difficulty conceiving the internet as opposing people. There are (cf. RFC 6852 which documents the reason why the internet has developped) global communities gwhich are genuinely or artificially motivated to buy services from vendors. There is a vendors de coopetition within the statUS-quo architectural, economic, political and defense framework orchestrated by States (mainly USG) and telecom operators (price of the bandwidth), RIRs (price of the IP address) and ICANN (price of domain name). This results in an economic model of which the digisphere is dependent through the internet architectural model. This model is resilient to a point: as every other system it is erroded by the risks resulting form its efficient use (cf. sustainability curve - if you do not know about it, you can get an idea with the following quote "While efficiency is highly appreciated in our world, it's not very good for the sustainability of a system if it goes too far." ) >(1) - everyone of the "interested parties" is very much in favor of >R&D, as long as it is their very own R&D, resulting in their very >own IPR and control. This is in the core of the reason why those >parties can never agree. Yes. This is life. One idea to correct it is that everyone is supposed equal. This is democracy. But there always are some who manage to be more equal than others. This is politics. There might be a way to concert in order not to work through general laws but in subsidiarity where most of the multiple stakeholders could be satisfied . This is polycracy. As in nature. This is what we are about. >As for your point 3... it is interesting, that after you cannot >convince the Internet population to accept your behavior models, you >go to ITU, believing that private-Government structure can do >something about it? They could, if they owned the Internet, as they >did all the communication networks before, including those >experiments in France. >Is this your understanding of "civil society"? My understanding of civil society is an equal overeign capacity to negociate with every other stakeholder, it being ITU or Gov You are a new commer in this long history and the commercial owner of .bg, if I m right. As such you are a professional member of the ICANN community and have a marketing oriented vision of the DNS (I was quite interested at the time when you reported you new .bg space oraganization to open the market for multiple registrars - It was fully in line with your vision of an internet where we try to give more for the same price). However, I was with Peter de Blanc when he told Mike Roberts not to force us to resort to our nuclear arsenal. This is the way things happens between soverign allies engaged in a multilateral endeavor. >>- yes, the architecture of the Internet has remained the same since >>its very first day (1.1.83) due to the political/commercial >>opposition from the statUS-quo. > >You imply the US had supported the development of the public >Internet. They have not. The US actually tried very hard to prevent >it, as did most other governments. This is an opinion. As such I will respect it. But as a former participant to the CCITT US delegation I am not sure I can agree with it ... >>The IGF mission is to help enhanced cooperation projects toward the >>emergence of new technologies for the Information society. At this >>stage, there are two possible sources of such an emergence: >> >>- the private commercial stakeholders category through OpenStand. >>- the Civil Society through an OpenUse coalition/cooperation effort >>that I support. > >One question remains unanswered here: did the typical Internet >participant ask for your "help"? Do they really need it? Do they care? Good question. - I think you have the answer. The Internet has always favored "what works" -- one way, or another. - I suggest it also discriminates on the cost of "what works". I will give you an example: something I target is free DNs that work for the cusers (civil users), paid by the commercial sector in a people centered information society were people purchase from the commercial vendors. >>Actually, we can help one another. This is why we are trying to >>keep and encourage an open and positive dialog. Both sides fear >>rogue and confusing elements, especially on the Civil Side because >>we are far younger and weaker as a structure and global community >>and due to the diversity of the FLOSS culture > >You mean, the "private commercial stakeholder" and the "Civil >Society" can help each other? Sure, you both can. This is correct: you and me. >What about those who are the Internet? We both are. Some are national/societal development oriented (govs), others are money oriented (commercial sector), others are people development oriented (civil society), others are global development oriented (intl. organizations) other are illegal money oriented (crime). All of them equally belong to the digisphere, caring about their different stakes. Cheers. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Sep 2 14:52:21 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 20:52:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting) In-Reply-To: <20130902163642.29cd19be@quill> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> <20130831181123.4660efa2@quill> <20130901233719.2f8506d8@quill> <20130902163642.29cd19be@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 jcurran at arin.net Mon Sep 2 15:54:14 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 19:54:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8244706E-7468-4C67-9446-B17A67747445@corp.arin.net> On Aug 31, 2013, at 9:09 AM, JFC Morfin > wrote: Why is this that RIRs have been the first to endorse OpenStand RFC 6852 http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/? For clarity, ARIN did not endorse the Open Stand platform, predominantly because when the opportunity to participate presented itself, there was insufficient time for consideration of this particular statement of principles and implications by the ARIN community. Note also that "not endorsing" does not equate to rejecting the Open Stand principles; it simply means that they have not been brought before the ARIN community for consideration at this time. Many of the Open Stand principles (e.g. openness, transparency, equity, fairness, consensus) may be found in ARIN's foundational documents, but to me that does not equate to having community consideration and endorsement of the full platform as it applies to the mission of ARIN. Additionally, the Open Stand principles appear to have been chosen in the context of technical standards development, and was not clear how such principles would apply to activities for Internet number resource management. For example, while calling for "voluntarily adoption" of technical standards is fairly clear, less clear is how such a principle would apply to the various registries (e.g. protocol, number, or name registries) - all of which are predicated on consistent and near universal adoption in order to maintain uniqueness and global interoperability. Similarly, technical "standards that are chosen and defined based on technical merit" seems quite clear, but that becomes less clear in the registry policy realm given the possibility of applicable public policy directives and/or mandates that may also warrant consideration in the development of registry policy. Given the lack of ARIN community consideration of these principles, as well as some uncertainty regarding its application to ARIN's mission, it was not possible to endorse the Open Stand platform at announcement. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN p.s. FYI - ARIN's representation of the community in the region (on matters of Internet governance and overall Internet policy) is based upon those positions that have been repeatedly discussed at our member meetings and which are represented on our web site here: please feel free to provide feedback to me if you feel that these positions are lacking in some manner - Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 2 23:16:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:16:07 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil to push for greater decentralization of Internet infrastructure In-Reply-To: <201308151516.r7FFGgbS019324@vcn.bc.ca> References: <201308151516.r7FFGgbS019324@vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <00ab01cea853$f92c3920$eb84ab60$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of nettime's avid reader Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:14 PM To: nettime-l at mx.kein.org Subject: Brazil to push for greater decentralization of Internet infrastructure Brazil moves to secure telecom, Internet systems after US spying Brasilia, Aug 15 The Hindu http://tinyurl.com/kmnrp8b (AFP) Brazil said on Wednesday it is moving to secure its communications through its own satellite and digital networks to end its dependence on the United States, which is accused of electronically spying on the region. ?Brazil is in favour of greater decentralisation: Internet governance must be multilateral and multisectoral with a broader participation,? the Communications Minister, Paulo Bernardo, told a congressional panel. Yesterday, Foreign Minister, Antonio Patriota, warned his US counterpart, John Kerry, that the row over Washington?s electronic snooping could sow mistrust between the two countries. Kerry responded by conceding that Brasilia was owed answers from Washington and would get them. He suggested that the vast US surveillance programme aimed to "provide security, not just for Americans, but for Brazilians and the people of the world." But Bernardo today criticised the ?strong concentration of (Internet) traffic? by US firms. Revelations by US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden about the vast scope of US electronic surveillance programmes have caused deep unease in Brazil and other Latin American countries that have reportedly been targeted by the spying. Bernardo said Brasilia was finalising the selection of companies that will be tasked with building and launching a geostationary defence and strategic communications satellite. French-Italian group Thales Alenia Space (TAS) has said it had won a contract worth about $400 million to build a satellite for Brazil's developing space programme. The order, placed by Visiona -- jointly owned by Brazilian aeroplane maker Embraer and telecom provider Telebras -- is for a geostationary satellite for civil and military use. Telebras said that with the satellite, "high-speed Internet will be extended to the entire nation and will ensure the sovereignty of its civil and military communications." Arianespace has been selected to launch the satellite in 2015. The deal also allows for a transfer of technology between TAS and Brazil, making TAS the preferred industrial partner in building up Brazil?s space programme. (This article was published on August 15, 2013) # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org !DSPAM:2676,520cf0dd92534052070038! -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 2 23:37:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:07:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil to push for greater decentralization of Internet infrastructure Message-ID: High speed Internet and satellite don't exactly go together as our colleagues from parts of Africa and Asia will attest. And then keeping local traffic local ad the minister suggests is indeed a best practice These two are not specifically igov related though so something more concrete would remain to be seen.. I suggest we wait for something more specific from Brazil --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil to push for greater decentralization of Internet infrastructure Date: Tue, Sep 3, 2013 8:46 AM -----Original Message----- From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of nettime's avid reader Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:14 PM To: nettime-l at mx.kein.org Subject: Brazil to push for greater decentralization of Internet infrastructure Brazil moves to secure telecom, Internet systems after US spying Brasilia, Aug 15 The Hindu http://tinyurl.com/kmnrp8b (AFP) Brazil said on Wednesday it is moving to secure its communications through its own satellite and digital networks to end its dependence on the United States, which is accused of electronically spying on the region. ?Brazil is in favour of greater decentralisation: Internet governance must be multilateral and multisectoral with a broader participation,? the Communications Minister, Paulo Bernardo, told a congressional panel. Yesterday, Foreign Minister, Antonio Patriota, warned his US counterpart, John Kerry, that the row over Washington?s electronic snooping could sow mistrust between the two countries. Kerry responded by conceding that Brasilia was owed answers from Washington and would get them. He suggested that the vast US surveillance programme aimed to "provide security, not just for Americans, but for Brazilians and the people of the world." But Bernardo today criticised the ?strong concentration of (Internet) traffic? by US firms. Revelations by US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden about the vast scope of US electronic surveillance programmes have caused deep unease in Brazil and other Latin American countries that have reportedly been targeted by the spying. Bernardo said Brasilia was finalising the selection of companies that will be tasked with building and launching a geostationary defence and strategic communications satellite. French-Italian group Thales Alenia Space (TAS) has said it had won a contract worth about $400 million to build a satellite for Brazil's developing space programme. The order, placed by Visiona -- jointly owned by Brazilian aeroplane maker Embraer and telecom provider Telebras -- is for a geostationary satellite for civil and military use. Telebras said that with the satellite, "high-speed Internet will be extended to the entire nation and will ensure the sovereignty of its civil and military communications." Arianespace has been selected to launch the satellite in 2015. The deal also allows for a transfer of technology between TAS and Brazil, making TAS the preferred industrial partner in building up Brazil?s space programme. (This article was published on August 15, 2013) # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org !DSPAM:2676,520cf0dd92534052070038! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 3 00:35:50 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:05:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Web We Want Small Grants Message-ID: <52256726.70105@itforchange.net> FYI The Web We Want Small Grants round for 2013 has been announced, with three different categories of grants. Rapid Response (deadline: open, rolling) Micro-grants designed to help when you face an unexpected crisis or strategic opportunity that demands more resources fast. Surveillance Action Research (deadline: open and rolling until September 30) These grants will enable national groups or coalitions to investigate their own country's surveillance policies, laws and practices. Funds are available for action research to provide solid evidence to underpin your own local advocacy, media work and campaigning. The results of the country research will also be published under your group's name in a special report on global surveillance. Capacity Building and Outreach (deadline: September 9) Capacity Building and Outreach funds are available to groups in selected African and Asian countries to run workshops or training sessions that will increase understanding of the value of an open, free, and universally accessible internet and the policies needed to advance it. Grants could be used to run interactive workshops or training sessions, and/or to host a participatory dialogue on what actions or policy changes are most important in your country; or in other ways that you suggest to us based on your needs. Resource materials, including the Web Index report cards on how effectively countries around the world are using the Web, will be supplied to help you plan training and awareness-raising sessions. More details about the grants and how to apply are on the Web We Want website. in English, French and Spanish. English -http://webwewant.org/2013-grant-funding-round French - http://webwewant.org/fr/programme-de-petites-subventions-web-we-want Spanish - http://webwewant.org/es/programa-de-subvenciones-menores-de-web-we-want -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu Tue Sep 3 11:27:19 2013 From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:27:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Call_for_Tenders_SMART_2013/N004_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=93European_Capability_for_Situational_Awareness=94_=28E?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?CSA=29_-_European_Federation_for_cyber-censorship_and_hu?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?man_rights_monitoring?= Message-ID: Dear colleagues (and some friends in the lists), The purpose of this email is to inform you of the recent publication of the Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA). If you are interested in this contract, you should submit your tender no later than 26/09/2013. You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender, tender specifications and model contract) in the following link: http://bit.ly/16E6sfG At the initiative of the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), in close cooperation with other European Commission services (DG Development and Cooperation and DG Enterprise) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Commission has put in place the No-Disconnect Strategy.1 The goal of this policy toolkit is to provide on-going support to counter-censorship and surveillance to facilitate the role of activists, political dissidents, bloggers, journalists and citizens living and/or operating in high-risk environments, or elsewhere. This way we make operational our commitment to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms online and support that the No-Disconnect Strategy embraces the wider EU strategy for Human Rights.2 For those who are not yet familiar with the Strategy, its four main strands of activity are: (1) development of technological tools; (2) training/awareness and capacity building; (3) development of methods to provide a global capability for situational awareness; and (4) cooperation with the ICT/Internet industry, EU Member States and third countries, also involved in the protection of online freedom of expression and privacy. The tender "European capability for situational awareness" (ECSA) is aimed at providing to the European Commission the framework and information necessary to evaluate the creation of a wider European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring, and the underlying system infrastructure required to that end. To achieve this objective, the ICT-PSP Work Programme 2013 will support the development of the ECSA platform with an allocation of approximately EUR 400,000 for the initial phase (conceptualization of the platform according to the conditions seth forth in the tender specifications that you will find in the link above, and the design of a first prototype of the systems infrastructure and interactive map). The idea departed partially from the “OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy Making”, in particular the following two ones: * “Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process. Publicly available data can increase the quality of all stakeholders’ participation in Internet policy- making as well as governments’ ultimate policy decisions. The collection, validation and public dissemination of objective data to inform Internet policy decisions should be reinforced and used to augment the combined research capacities of governments, other competent authorities and other stakeholders. International comparable metrics will help to quantify the ongoing economic developments and assess the proportionality and effectiveness of any policy solutions created in multi-stakeholder processes. Data gathering should be undertaken so as to avoid administrative burdens and data analysis should be done carefully to enable sound policymaking.” * “Transparency, fair process, and accountability. In order to build public trust in the Internet environment, policy-making processes and substantive policies that ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability should be encouraged. Transparency ensures that Internet users have timely, accessible, and actionable information that is relevant to their rights and interests”. Is in this context in which we realized that a tool enabling evidence-based policy-making and transparency related, in this case, to censorship and surveillance, could also provide situational awareness not only to EU policy and decision makers but also to those affected directly by the aforementioned restrictions, maximizing their empowerment: political dissidents, activists, human rights defenders, bloggers, journalists and several other essential actors in the fight for online (and offline) freedom. Now, shifting the focus of this email to the tender itself, the tasks outlined in the tender specifications (http://bit.ly/16E6sfG) will address, among several other things, the definition of the governance framework and systems infrastructure that should govern and support the operations of the federation of organizations that tenderers will have to propose, taking into account that all sorts of expertise on Internet-event monitoring will be needed. With the view to translate the Internet reality into a “cartography” of cyber-censorship and cyber-surveillance, the federation will be anchored in a dynamic platform -controlled from a dashboard-, where the aforementioned federated network of partners with Internet and censorship/surveillance monitoring capabilities will aggregate a variety of clearly defined sets of data (including Open Data and Big Data) coming from several sources and stakeholders. We expect this project to provide reliable and real time or near-real time information on the status of network connectivity and network traffic alterations/restrictions, as well as timely information on legal, social and political developments related to the use of the Internet and media for the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. As it seems obvious, the gathering of data (and in some cases of information) will be related to the location and intensity of cyber-censorship and surveillance in non-democratic countries, nascent democracies, jurisdictions where human rights are most at risk or other parts of the globe where similar trends have been arising in recent times. The data gathering will have two tracks: the first one addressing restrictions/disruptions of Internet and ICT infrastructure, access, traffic, content, Internet cut-offs or security events, inter alia, overlaid with a second track of contextual data of political, social, legal, regulatory, policy, media, journalistic or human rights nature, related to the Internet or not and with a global scope, which would help provide the full picture and enable the EU and other actors to swiftly act upon reliable and timely information. Examples of this second track could be arrests of journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression in times of elections, laws affecting Internet openness, crack-downs on activists or restriction to NGO´s establishment, to name a few. That near-real time information will be mashed-up and controlled from the dashboard, and presented in a user-friendly manner, ideally in different layers (thematic, geographic, highly troubled areas, etc.) through interactive visualizations via live maps as an essential condition, coupled with the generation of alarms; subject-matter reports and geographical reports. As you will see in the tender, new ways of dissemination of information are most welcome. As highlighted before, this type of capability is expected to enhance the current EU´s early-warning, decision-making and policy-making skills and strengthen the level of situational awareness of, but not limited to, stakeholders such as digital activists or human rights defenders, but even researchers. In particular, the tasks you will find in the tender are: Task 1 Creation of an Internet censorship monitoring Federation Task 2 Provision of a Data Sources catalogue Task 3 Definition of a Data Governance Framework Task 4 Definition of the technical and infrastructure specifications, features and functionalities (including security measures) Task 5 Recommendations Some of the expected positive impacts of ECSA we can name are as follows: (1) Ensuring Internet resilience and stability; (2) Reinforcement of early-warning capabilities and emergency response concerning events affecting human rights, legal, policy and media restrictions; (3) Better measurement of the evolution of non-democratic environments to democratic ones ("democracy thermometer"); (4) Better exchange of information and capacity building among relevant stakeholders; (5) Better response in case of attacks to human rights and activists networks; (6) Creation of a body of knowledge at the disposal of academics and researchers, as well as of the general public (Open Science); (7) Publication of timely reports and alarms on relevant Internet and human rights related events (including activity and threat reports); (8) Support to the implementation of Human Rights-based approaches; (9) Optimization of resources and tailored targeted grant support in areas where human rights are most at risk in terms of cyber censorship and surveillance; (10) Reinforcement of capabilities to ensure global Internet connectivity; (11) Provide (new) methods for network measurement; (12) Provision of a new source of information about Internet security and infrastructure incidents; or (13) Provision of capabilities for crisis mapping, among others. In Part 1 of the Tender specifications you will find the Technical Description, containing the general context, the specific context and examples of organisations and existing projects in the area of Internet monitoring (whereby some of your projects we regularly observe are mentioned). As regards the Elegibility Criteria, we recommend you to have a look in detail at Part 2 of the Tender Specifications containing the Administrative Details, in particular Section 1 “Elegibility requirements”; Section 2 “Administrative Requirements”; Section 5.2 “Selection Criteria” and Section 5.3 “Award Criteria”. At the request of tenderers, additional information will be communicated solely for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the contract and the tender specifications. Such information will have to be communicated on the same date to all interested parties hence your questions will be published in the link referred to in the document “invitation to the tender” (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news-redirect/l1626). This means that for whatever doubt you may have, you can write directly to camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (copying our functional mailbox CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu). We will do so for transparency reasons and to guarantee equal competition, making publicly available both, question and answers. The opening of received tenders will take place on 10/10/2013 at 10.00h in the Commission building located in Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Brussels. One authorised representative of each tenderer may attend such opening. Tenderers who plan to attend the opening session have to inform me (Ms Camino Manjon Sierra) by e-mail camino.MANJON@,ec.europa.eu; by fax (+32 2 296 89 70) or letter at least 72h in advance. I advance a clerical mistake in the section referring to the information to be stated in the outer envelope when you send us over your tenders: "INVITATION TO TENDER SMART 2013/N004 / FULL OJ REF" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE MESSENGER/COURIER SERVICE" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE OPENING COMMITTEE BEFORE 16/9/2013", where 16/9/2013 should be 26/09/2013. As a closing, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague and mentor Andrea Glorioso for his support in the firs steps of this complex project and for conducting our European Capability Situational Awareness workshop celebrated in November 2012, when due to a contractual pause before my current position in the European Commission I could not be on the driving seat or provide any out of the box thinking! I take the opportunity to also sincerely thank all those organizations which took part in the workshop (Agenda available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf//document.cfm?doc_id=1094). We look forward to receiving your proposals and we thank you all for the good inspiration that your work has meant for us. 1http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/ 2http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf Best regards Ms Camino Manjon Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; dot.EU; Internet and Human Rights Desk Officer Iran, Syria, Sudan, Iraq & Yemen Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447 Twitter @msprotonneutron Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Tue Sep 3 13:25:16 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 17:25:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: Registration open for Bali IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5225FB6D.3010104@apc.org>, Message-ID: From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com To: kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc at orion.my.co.ke Subject: Registration open for Bali IGF Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:03:29 +0000 Hello everyone, Registration for Bali IGF is now open. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-registration -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Sep 3 14:41:47 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 20:41:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> <20130831181123.4660efa2@quill> <20130901233719.2f8506d8@quill> <20130902163642.29cd19be@quill> Message-ID: <20130903204147.1e214e50@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: > At 16:36 02/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> I personally distinguish between >> [..] >> 3) Internet as an information and communication system: the global >> information and communication system that: (i) is logically linked >> together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet >> Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able >> to support communications using the Transmission Control >> Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent >> extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and >> (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or >> privately, high level services layered on the communications and >> related infrastructure described herein. (This is slightly modified >> from a definition adopted in 1995 by the US Federal Networking >> Council) > > This is (my feeling) THE main problem that we face. The reason is > clearly indicated: it was "adopted" (not a natural description) by a > Federal (US) council. Hmm... you're making an important point around “who decides how we see the Internet”! I think that the “Internet as an information and communication system” perspective is a valid dimension of analysis (and given that the work of putting this into reasonably precise words has already been done, I see no need to duplicate that effort, regardless of who did that). The key question is IMO whether one defines and see the Internet so strongly from the “information and communication system” perspective that one becomes essentially blind for the other important aspects, or whether we treat this as one among multiple important dimensions of analysis. > Beware! The US for me does not mean USG, but the whole set of US > interests in internet leadership/dominance related to industries, > majors, defense, Gov, etc. Yes, the US government's international policies certainly seems to be guided primarily by such a bundle of such particular interests and those stakeholders are also exerting significant influence on their own through how they act. By the way you really got me thinking about civil society needing to develop capacity for being able to engage by means of long-term sustained action that goes beyond merely talking/communicating. > Actually, in the day to > day life digisphere (which includes that (4) definition of the > internet) is probably more precise. Do you have a good definition of “digisphere”? > I see. You are OK with a fuzzy reading of the Tunis agreement. My > problem with that is that people started reading it this way, instead > of reading it as a precise, non-fuzzy, but dynamic document. > Therefore, the more we go, the less we agree. I'm not sure that an update of the Tunis Agenda would solve this problem. Sure, wordings that have proved highly problematic might get improved, but I'd expect that the need for creative diplomatic ambiguity might arise again. > Further to my appeal IRT RFC 6852 there will be a need to propose how > OpenStand should be inserted in the IGF or how the IGF will consider > OpenStand. My intent would be to publish an RFC on the matter. Would > you be interested in teaming up on it? I'd love to, and I sincerely thank you for the invitation, but alas I don't have have any spare capacity to take on any additional tasks. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Tue Sep 3 22:40:21 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 14:40:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Council Briefing Note: 24th Session Message-ID: <52269D95.9020403@apc.org> Dear friends, The programme for the upcoming session of the Human Rights Council is now available. This is session the 24th session of the Council (HRC24) and will be taking place from 9-27 September in Geneva. Plenary sessions will be live streamed and archived at: http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/c/un-human-rights-council.html The twitter hashtag for the session is #HRC24 This will be a busy 15 day session, with several full-day non-stop meetings as well as a variety of side-events, open and closed sessions for resolution negotiations, planning sessions and other meetings. The High Commissioner for Human Rights will present her update, and an interactive dialogue will take place with the Human Rights Advisory Committee as well as a number of Special Procedures, including on indigenous peoples, on truth justice and reparation, and on contemporary forms of slavery. The Commission of Inquiry on Syria will also provide an update to the HRC. There will be the annual discussion on gender integration. The Council will consider Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reports on Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Russian Federation, Cameroon, Cuba, Turkmenistan, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Colombia, Uzbekistan, Tuvalu, Germany, Djibouti, and Canada. HRC24 will also present an opportunity, in light of the recent Snowden revelations, to further discuss issues of mass surveillance and privacy rights, building on the civil society statement from HRC23 calling for some means to ensure more systematic attention by the UN to internet related human rights violations. We've prepared a short briefing on the three particular internet related human rights items that will be addressed at HRC 24, as well as some background on the Council's work on the internet and human rights which is available here: http://www.apc.org/en/node/18478/ Should you have additional questions please contact: deborah [at] accessnow [dot] org and joy [at] apc [dot] org Kind regards Joy Liddicoat Programme Coordinator Internet Access and Rights www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 4 01:49:21 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 14:49:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Asia Pacific regional IGF ongoing now Message-ID: APrIGF opened this morning, workshops are being streamed now. Agenda: and streaming Video and real-time transcript. Internet governance for human rights and democracy on now. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu Wed Sep 4 03:39:48 2013 From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 07:39:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?RE=3A_=5Bliberationtech=5D_Call_for?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Tenders_SMART_2013/N004_=93European_Capability_for_Situ?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ational_Awareness=94_=28ECSA=29_-_European_Federation_fo?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?r_cyber-censorship_and_human_rights_monitoring?= In-Reply-To: <20130903123106.085fe504@kilik> References: ,<20130903123106.085fe504@kilik> Message-ID: Dear Andrew, It is not out department in charge of blocking Tor users from accessing content hosted under Europa,eu. Conversations with the DG In charge (DG DIGIT) as most of you know, have been long and unfruitful so far. I am on leave now but at my return I will retake conversations with the officials in charge of the internal EC security to see the chances to lift the ban. Please do not blame us for needing to find freedom reasons to allow access. We do our utmost, but some times one policy officer can´t challenge on her own and in the glimpse of an eye the entire security policy of the big institution we are. I wish you can find other means to access the content, otherwise, you can find the relevant documents attached. As usual, I remain available for clarifications and for a friendly chat, as I would not like to see this becoming into an "EC name & shame" issue due to the Tor restrictions. We also do good work which should not be shaded by this incident, although it is also not my intention to play it down. All the best and I hope the attachments can help. Best regards Ms Camino Manjon ________________________________________ From: Andrew Lewman [andrew at torproject.is] Sent: 03 September 2013 18:31 To: MANJON Camino (CNECT) Cc: liberationtech; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; pet at lists.links.org Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA) - European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:27:19 +0000 wrote: > You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender, > tender specifications and model contract) in the following link: > > http://bit.ly/16E6sfG It seems your website is blocking access from the very tools you're trying to fund and create. I just tried access via Tor, ipredator vpn, and hotspot shield. All received the following message: "Access Denied Your request has been denied for security reason." Perhaps you need a freedom reason to allow access. -- Andrew http://tpo.is/contact pgp 0x6B4D6475 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECSAFinalInvitationtoTender-5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 746749 bytes Desc: ECSAFinalInvitationtoTender-5.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECSAFinalModelcontract-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 271207 bytes Desc: ECSAFinalModelcontract-1.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECSAFinalTenderspecifications-5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 622210 bytes Desc: ECSAFinalTenderspecifications-5.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu Wed Sep 4 04:49:59 2013 From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:49:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?RE=3A_Call_for_Tenders_SMART_2013/N?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?004_=93European_Capability_for_Situational_Awareness=94_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=28ECSA=29_-_European_Federation_for_cyber-censorship_an?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d_human_rights_monitoring?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, And now the full EC link, for all those ones, like our friends in CN for instance, where bitly is blocked http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/smart-2013n004-—-european-capability-situational-awareness Thanks Erik J. for the warning. Seems we do really have a problem with censorship (jokingly said of course) I hope we can also input that to ECSA! All the best Ms Camino Manjon ________________________________ From: MANJON Camino (CNECT) Sent: 03 September 2013 17:27 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu; pet at lists.links.org Subject: Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA) - European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring Dear colleagues (and some friends in the lists), The purpose of this email is to inform you of the recent publication of the Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA). If you are interested in this contract, you should submit your tender no later than 26/09/2013. You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender, tender specifications and model contract) in the following link: http://bit.ly/16E6sfG At the initiative of the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), in close cooperation with other European Commission services (DG Development and Cooperation and DG Enterprise) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Commission has put in place the No-Disconnect Strategy.1 The goal of this policy toolkit is to provide on-going support to counter-censorship and surveillance to facilitate the role of activists, political dissidents, bloggers, journalists and citizens living and/or operating in high-risk environments, or elsewhere. This way we make operational our commitment to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms online and support that the No-Disconnect Strategy embraces the wider EU strategy for Human Rights.2 For those who are not yet familiar with the Strategy, its four main strands of activity are: (1) development of technological tools; (2) training/awareness and capacity building; (3) development of methods to provide a global capability for situational awareness; and (4) cooperation with the ICT/Internet industry, EU Member States and third countries, also involved in the protection of online freedom of expression and privacy. The tender "European capability for situational awareness" (ECSA) is aimed at providing to the European Commission the framework and information necessary to evaluate the creation of a wider European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring, and the underlying system infrastructure required to that end. To achieve this objective, the ICT-PSP Work Programme 2013 will support the development of the ECSA platform with an allocation of approximately EUR 400,000 for the initial phase (conceptualization of the platform according to the conditions seth forth in the tender specifications that you will find in the link above, and the design of a first prototype of the systems infrastructure and interactive map). The idea departed partially from the “OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy Making”, in particular the following two ones: * “Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process. Publicly available data can increase the quality of all stakeholders’ participation in Internet policy- making as well as governments’ ultimate policy decisions. The collection, validation and public dissemination of objective data to inform Internet policy decisions should be reinforced and used to augment the combined research capacities of governments, other competent authorities and other stakeholders. International comparable metrics will help to quantify the ongoing economic developments and assess the proportionality and effectiveness of any policy solutions created in multi-stakeholder processes. Data gathering should be undertaken so as to avoid administrative burdens and data analysis should be done carefully to enable sound policymaking.” * “Transparency, fair process, and accountability. In order to build public trust in the Internet environment, policy-making processes and substantive policies that ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability should be encouraged. Transparency ensures that Internet users have timely, accessible, and actionable information that is relevant to their rights and interests”. Is in this context in which we realized that a tool enabling evidence-based policy-making and transparency related, in this case, to censorship and surveillance, could also provide situational awareness not only to EU policy and decision makers but also to those affected directly by the aforementioned restrictions, maximizing their empowerment: political dissidents, activists, human rights defenders, bloggers, journalists and several other essential actors in the fight for online (and offline) freedom. Now, shifting the focus of this email to the tender itself, the tasks outlined in the tender specifications (http://bit.ly/16E6sfG) will address, among several other things, the definition of the governance framework and systems infrastructure that should govern and support the operations of the federation of organizations that tenderers will have to propose, taking into account that all sorts of expertise on Internet-event monitoring will be needed. With the view to translate the Internet reality into a “cartography” of cyber-censorship and cyber-surveillance, the federation will be anchored in a dynamic platform -controlled from a dashboard-, where the aforementioned federated network of partners with Internet and censorship/surveillance monitoring capabilities will aggregate a variety of clearly defined sets of data (including Open Data and Big Data) coming from several sources and stakeholders. We expect this project to provide reliable and real time or near-real time information on the status of network connectivity and network traffic alterations/restrictions, as well as timely information on legal, social and political developments related to the use of the Internet and media for the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. As it seems obvious, the gathering of data (and in some cases of information) will be related to the location and intensity of cyber-censorship and surveillance in non-democratic countries, nascent democracies, jurisdictions where human rights are most at risk or other parts of the globe where similar trends have been arising in recent times. The data gathering will have two tracks: the first one addressing restrictions/disruptions of Internet and ICT infrastructure, access, traffic, content, Internet cut-offs or security events, inter alia, overlaid with a second track of contextual data of political, social, legal, regulatory, policy, media, journalistic or human rights nature, related to the Internet or not and with a global scope, which would help provide the full picture and enable the EU and other actors to swiftly act upon reliable and timely information. Examples of this second track could be arrests of journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression in times of elections, laws affecting Internet openness, crack-downs on activists or restriction to NGO´s establishment, to name a few. That near-real time information will be mashed-up and controlled from the dashboard, and presented in a user-friendly manner, ideally in different layers (thematic, geographic, highly troubled areas, etc.) through interactive visualizations via live maps as an essential condition, coupled with the generation of alarms; subject-matter reports and geographical reports. As you will see in the tender, new ways of dissemination of information are most welcome. As highlighted before, this type of capability is expected to enhance the current EU´s early-warning, decision-making and policy-making skills and strengthen the level of situational awareness of, but not limited to, stakeholders such as digital activists or human rights defenders, but even researchers. In particular, the tasks you will find in the tender are: Task 1 Creation of an Internet censorship monitoring Federation Task 2 Provision of a Data Sources catalogue Task 3 Definition of a Data Governance Framework Task 4 Definition of the technical and infrastructure specifications, features and functionalities (including security measures) Task 5 Recommendations Some of the expected positive impacts of ECSA we can name are as follows: (1) Ensuring Internet resilience and stability; (2) Reinforcement of early-warning capabilities and emergency response concerning events affecting human rights, legal, policy and media restrictions; (3) Better measurement of the evolution of non-democratic environments to democratic ones ("democracy thermometer"); (4) Better exchange of information and capacity building among relevant stakeholders; (5) Better response in case of attacks to human rights and activists networks; (6) Creation of a body of knowledge at the disposal of academics and researchers, as well as of the general public (Open Science); (7) Publication of timely reports and alarms on relevant Internet and human rights related events (including activity and threat reports); (8) Support to the implementation of Human Rights-based approaches; (9) Optimization of resources and tailored targeted grant support in areas where human rights are most at risk in terms of cyber censorship and surveillance; (10) Reinforcement of capabilities to ensure global Internet connectivity; (11) Provide (new) methods for network measurement; (12) Provision of a new source of information about Internet security and infrastructure incidents; or (13) Provision of capabilities for crisis mapping, among others. In Part 1 of the Tender specifications you will find the Technical Description, containing the general context, the specific context and examples of organisations and existing projects in the area of Internet monitoring (whereby some of your projects we regularly observe are mentioned). As regards the Elegibility Criteria, we recommend you to have a look in detail at Part 2 of the Tender Specifications containing the Administrative Details, in particular Section 1 “Elegibility requirements”; Section 2 “Administrative Requirements”; Section 5.2 “Selection Criteria” and Section 5.3 “Award Criteria”. At the request of tenderers, additional information will be communicated solely for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the contract and the tender specifications. Such information will have to be communicated on the same date to all interested parties hence your questions will be published in the link referred to in the document “invitation to the tender” (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news-redirect/l1626). This means that for whatever doubt you may have, you can write directly to camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (copying our functional mailbox CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu). We will do so for transparency reasons and to guarantee equal competition, making publicly available both, question and answers. The opening of received tenders will take place on 10/10/2013 at 10.00h in the Commission building located in Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Brussels. One authorised representative of each tenderer may attend such opening. Tenderers who plan to attend the opening session have to inform me (Ms Camino Manjon Sierra) by e-mail camino.MANJON@,ec.europa.eu; by fax (+32 2 296 89 70) or letter at least 72h in advance. I advance a clerical mistake in the section referring to the information to be stated in the outer envelope when you send us over your tenders: "INVITATION TO TENDER SMART 2013/N004 / FULL OJ REF" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE MESSENGER/COURIER SERVICE" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE OPENING COMMITTEE BEFORE 16/9/2013", where 16/9/2013 should be 26/09/2013. As a closing, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague and mentor Andrea Glorioso for his support in the firs steps of this complex project and for conducting our European Capability Situational Awareness workshop celebrated in November 2012, when due to a contractual pause before my current position in the European Commission I could not be on the driving seat or provide any out of the box thinking! I take the opportunity to also sincerely thank all those organizations which took part in the workshop (Agenda available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf//document.cfm?doc_id=1094). We look forward to receiving your proposals and we thank you all for the good inspiration that your work has meant for us. 1http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/ 2http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf Best regards Ms Camino Manjon Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; dot.EU; Internet and Human Rights Desk Officer Iran, Syria, Sudan, Iraq & Yemen Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447 Twitter @msprotonneutron Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu Wed Sep 4 06:04:11 2013 From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 10:04:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?RE=3A_Call_for_Tenders_SMART_2013/N?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?004_=93European_Capability_for_Situational_Awareness=94_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=28ECSA=29_-_European_Federation_for_cyber-censorship_an?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d_human_rights_monitoring?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Apologies for bombarding you with so many emails, but again, for those of you having trouble accessing the content of the links because you receive a response of this like "internal commission content", please access from http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/ and http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf Regards Camino Manjon ________________________________ From: MANJON Camino (CNECT) Sent: 03 September 2013 17:27 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu; pet at lists.links.org Subject: Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA) - European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring Dear colleagues (and some friends in the lists), The purpose of this email is to inform you of the recent publication of the Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA). If you are interested in this contract, you should submit your tender no later than 26/09/2013. You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender, tender specifications and model contract) in the following link: http://bit.ly/16E6sfG At the initiative of the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), in close cooperation with other European Commission services (DG Development and Cooperation and DG Enterprise) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Commission has put in place the No-Disconnect Strategy.1 The goal of this policy toolkit is to provide on-going support to counter-censorship and surveillance to facilitate the role of activists, political dissidents, bloggers, journalists and citizens living and/or operating in high-risk environments, or elsewhere. This way we make operational our commitment to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms online and support that the No-Disconnect Strategy embraces the wider EU strategy for Human Rights.2 For those who are not yet familiar with the Strategy, its four main strands of activity are: (1) development of technological tools; (2) training/awareness and capacity building; (3) development of methods to provide a global capability for situational awareness; and (4) cooperation with the ICT/Internet industry, EU Member States and third countries, also involved in the protection of online freedom of expression and privacy. The tender "European capability for situational awareness" (ECSA) is aimed at providing to the European Commission the framework and information necessary to evaluate the creation of a wider European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring, and the underlying system infrastructure required to that end. To achieve this objective, the ICT-PSP Work Programme 2013 will support the development of the ECSA platform with an allocation of approximately EUR 400,000 for the initial phase (conceptualization of the platform according to the conditions seth forth in the tender specifications that you will find in the link above, and the design of a first prototype of the systems infrastructure and interactive map). The idea departed partially from the “OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy Making”, in particular the following two ones: * “Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process. Publicly available data can increase the quality of all stakeholders’ participation in Internet policy- making as well as governments’ ultimate policy decisions. The collection, validation and public dissemination of objective data to inform Internet policy decisions should be reinforced and used to augment the combined research capacities of governments, other competent authorities and other stakeholders. International comparable metrics will help to quantify the ongoing economic developments and assess the proportionality and effectiveness of any policy solutions created in multi-stakeholder processes. Data gathering should be undertaken so as to avoid administrative burdens and data analysis should be done carefully to enable sound policymaking.” * “Transparency, fair process, and accountability. In order to build public trust in the Internet environment, policy-making processes and substantive policies that ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability should be encouraged. Transparency ensures that Internet users have timely, accessible, and actionable information that is relevant to their rights and interests”. Is in this context in which we realized that a tool enabling evidence-based policy-making and transparency related, in this case, to censorship and surveillance, could also provide situational awareness not only to EU policy and decision makers but also to those affected directly by the aforementioned restrictions, maximizing their empowerment: political dissidents, activists, human rights defenders, bloggers, journalists and several other essential actors in the fight for online (and offline) freedom. Now, shifting the focus of this email to the tender itself, the tasks outlined in the tender specifications (http://bit.ly/16E6sfG) will address, among several other things, the definition of the governance framework and systems infrastructure that should govern and support the operations of the federation of organizations that tenderers will have to propose, taking into account that all sorts of expertise on Internet-event monitoring will be needed. With the view to translate the Internet reality into a “cartography” of cyber-censorship and cyber-surveillance, the federation will be anchored in a dynamic platform -controlled from a dashboard-, where the aforementioned federated network of partners with Internet and censorship/surveillance monitoring capabilities will aggregate a variety of clearly defined sets of data (including Open Data and Big Data) coming from several sources and stakeholders. We expect this project to provide reliable and real time or near-real time information on the status of network connectivity and network traffic alterations/restrictions, as well as timely information on legal, social and political developments related to the use of the Internet and media for the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. As it seems obvious, the gathering of data (and in some cases of information) will be related to the location and intensity of cyber-censorship and surveillance in non-democratic countries, nascent democracies, jurisdictions where human rights are most at risk or other parts of the globe where similar trends have been arising in recent times. The data gathering will have two tracks: the first one addressing restrictions/disruptions of Internet and ICT infrastructure, access, traffic, content, Internet cut-offs or security events, inter alia, overlaid with a second track of contextual data of political, social, legal, regulatory, policy, media, journalistic or human rights nature, related to the Internet or not and with a global scope, which would help provide the full picture and enable the EU and other actors to swiftly act upon reliable and timely information. Examples of this second track could be arrests of journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression in times of elections, laws affecting Internet openness, crack-downs on activists or restriction to NGO´s establishment, to name a few. That near-real time information will be mashed-up and controlled from the dashboard, and presented in a user-friendly manner, ideally in different layers (thematic, geographic, highly troubled areas, etc.) through interactive visualizations via live maps as an essential condition, coupled with the generation of alarms; subject-matter reports and geographical reports. As you will see in the tender, new ways of dissemination of information are most welcome. As highlighted before, this type of capability is expected to enhance the current EU´s early-warning, decision-making and policy-making skills and strengthen the level of situational awareness of, but not limited to, stakeholders such as digital activists or human rights defenders, but even researchers. In particular, the tasks you will find in the tender are: Task 1 Creation of an Internet censorship monitoring Federation Task 2 Provision of a Data Sources catalogue Task 3 Definition of a Data Governance Framework Task 4 Definition of the technical and infrastructure specifications, features and functionalities (including security measures) Task 5 Recommendations Some of the expected positive impacts of ECSA we can name are as follows: (1) Ensuring Internet resilience and stability; (2) Reinforcement of early-warning capabilities and emergency response concerning events affecting human rights, legal, policy and media restrictions; (3) Better measurement of the evolution of non-democratic environments to democratic ones ("democracy thermometer"); (4) Better exchange of information and capacity building among relevant stakeholders; (5) Better response in case of attacks to human rights and activists networks; (6) Creation of a body of knowledge at the disposal of academics and researchers, as well as of the general public (Open Science); (7) Publication of timely reports and alarms on relevant Internet and human rights related events (including activity and threat reports); (8) Support to the implementation of Human Rights-based approaches; (9) Optimization of resources and tailored targeted grant support in areas where human rights are most at risk in terms of cyber censorship and surveillance; (10) Reinforcement of capabilities to ensure global Internet connectivity; (11) Provide (new) methods for network measurement; (12) Provision of a new source of information about Internet security and infrastructure incidents; or (13) Provision of capabilities for crisis mapping, among others. In Part 1 of the Tender specifications you will find the Technical Description, containing the general context, the specific context and examples of organisations and existing projects in the area of Internet monitoring (whereby some of your projects we regularly observe are mentioned). As regards the Elegibility Criteria, we recommend you to have a look in detail at Part 2 of the Tender Specifications containing the Administrative Details, in particular Section 1 “Elegibility requirements”; Section 2 “Administrative Requirements”; Section 5.2 “Selection Criteria” and Section 5.3 “Award Criteria”. At the request of tenderers, additional information will be communicated solely for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the contract and the tender specifications. Such information will have to be communicated on the same date to all interested parties hence your questions will be published in the link referred to in the document “invitation to the tender” (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news-redirect/l1626). This means that for whatever doubt you may have, you can write directly to camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (copying our functional mailbox CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu). We will do so for transparency reasons and to guarantee equal competition, making publicly available both, question and answers. The opening of received tenders will take place on 10/10/2013 at 10.00h in the Commission building located in Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Brussels. One authorised representative of each tenderer may attend such opening. Tenderers who plan to attend the opening session have to inform me (Ms Camino Manjon Sierra) by e-mail camino.MANJON@,ec.europa.eu; by fax (+32 2 296 89 70) or letter at least 72h in advance. I advance a clerical mistake in the section referring to the information to be stated in the outer envelope when you send us over your tenders: "INVITATION TO TENDER SMART 2013/N004 / FULL OJ REF" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE MESSENGER/COURIER SERVICE" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE OPENING COMMITTEE BEFORE 16/9/2013", where 16/9/2013 should be 26/09/2013. As a closing, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague and mentor Andrea Glorioso for his support in the firs steps of this complex project and for conducting our European Capability Situational Awareness workshop celebrated in November 2012, when due to a contractual pause before my current position in the European Commission I could not be on the driving seat or provide any out of the box thinking! I take the opportunity to also sincerely thank all those organizations which took part in the workshop (Agenda available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf//document.cfm?doc_id=1094). We look forward to receiving your proposals and we thank you all for the good inspiration that your work has meant for us. 1http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/ 2http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf Best regards Ms Camino Manjon Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; dot.EU; Internet and Human Rights Desk Officer Iran, Syria, Sudan, Iraq & Yemen Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447 Twitter @msprotonneutron Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 4 07:29:12 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:29:12 +0700 Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is Not Your Friend, Get Over It) Message-ID: <001f01cea962$013b8490$03b28db0$@gmail.com> This might interest some... Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is not your Friend, Get Over It) http://tinyurl.com/mwhlea4 Mike -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 4 09:55:38 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 20:55:38 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] NSA Laughs at PCs, Prefers Hacking Routers and Switches In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c501cea976$777a9380$666fba80$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: listmom at warpspeed.com [mailto:listmom at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 8:25 PM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by Subject: [Dewayne-Net] NSA Laughs at PCs, Prefers Hacking Routers and Switches NSA Laughs at PCs, Prefers Hacking Routers and Switches By KIM ZETTER 09.04.13 The NSA runs a massive, full-time hacking operation targeting foreign systems, the latest leaks from Edward Snowden show. But unlike conventional cybercriminals, the agency is less interested in hacking PCs and Macs. Instead, America's spooks have their eyes on the internet routers and switches that form the basic infrastructure of the net, and are largely overlooked as security vulnerabilities. Under a $652-million program codenamed "Genie," U.S. intel agencies have hacked into foreign computers and networks to monitor communications crossing them and to establish control over them, according to a secret black budget document leaked to the Washington Post. U.S. intelligence agencies conducted 231 offensive cyber operations in 2011 to penetrate the computer networks of targets abroad. This included not only installing covert "implants" in foreign desktop computers but also on routers and firewalls - tens of thousands of machines every year in all. According to the Post, the government planned to expand the program to cover millions of additional foreign machines in the future and preferred hacking routers to individual PCs because it gave agencies access to data from entire networks of computers instead of just individual machines. Most of the hacks targeted the systems and communications of top adversaries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea and included activities around nuclear proliferation. The NSA's focus on routers highlights an often-overlooked attack vector with huge advantages for the intruder, says Marc Maiffret, chief technology officer at security firm Beyond Trust. Hacking routers is an ideal way for an intelligence or military agency to maintain a persistent hold on network traffic because the systems aren't updated with new software very often or patched in the way that Windows and Linux systems are. "No on updates their routers," he says. "If you think people are bad about patching Windows and Linux (which they are) then they are . horrible about updating their networking gear because it is too critical, and usually they don't have redundancy to be able to do it properly." He also notes that routers don't have security software that can help detect a breach. "The challenge [with desktop systems] is that while antivirus don't work well on your desktop, they at least do something [to detect attacks]," he says. "But you don't even have an integrity check for the most part on routers and other such devices like IP cameras." Hijacking routers and switches could allow the NSA to do more than just eavesdrop on all the communications crossing that equipment. It would also let them bring down networks or prevent certain communication, such as military orders, from getting through, though the Post story doesn't report any such activities. With control of routers, the NSA could re-route traffic to a different location, or even alter it for disinformation campaigns, such as planting information that would have a detrimental political effect or altering orders to re-route troops or supplies in a military operation. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 4 14:16:32 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:16:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <8244706E-7468-4C67-9446-B17A67747445@corp.arin.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8244706E-7468-4C67-9446-B17A67747445@corp.arin.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 jcurran at arin.net Wed Sep 4 14:59:39 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:59:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <20130904184005.81F53213662@smtp2.arin.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8244706E-7468-4C67-9446-B17A67747445@corp.arin.net> <20130904184005.81F53213662@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <4111A5D6-E893-44A6-86D5-52F65F3F436C@arin.net> On Sep 4, 2013, at 2:16 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Please, convince me that the OpenStand/ARIN/ICANN statUS-quo, including your market monopoly, addresses and/or does not block the internet intelligent-users' needs and desired practices, and that ARIN is not involved what so ever in router control or ICANN in JFC - I can only speak for ARIN, and alas I cannot reassure you on all of your concerns due to the very nature of having a unique association between addresses and users. In particular, if you want to have a global registry where only one party is associated with each IP address block, then the policies and practices of the coordinated IP number registry most certainly can impact the "intelligent-users' needs and desired practices" At ARIN, there is a small number of mitigating measures in place to help reduce the possibility of unreasonable impacts; these include requirements for an open and transparent policy development process, requirements for policy to support fair and impartial number management, and having oversight via an elected board. Under such circumstances, the intelligent-users best defense is to actively participate in the number policy development process (e.g.) With respect to "router control", this is something that ARIN is not engaged in, nor do we foresee being engaged in same. Various ISPs make use of Internet number registry data in deciding how they'll assemble their routing tables (e.g. filters), but that is a practice which varies among providers based on their own preferences. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Sep 4 22:42:04 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:42:04 +0700 Subject: [governance] Bruce Schneier: The Only Way to Restore Trust in the NSA Message-ID: <047e01cea9e1$8af26440$a0d72cc0$@gmail.com> What Schneier is suggesting would go a long way to resolving some of the issues that Snowden raises for US citizens but doesn't seem to address what the NSA has been doing in the rest of the world--the EU, the UN, Mexico, Brazil that we know of now. What can/could/should be done about those and by whom? M ------------------------------------------- The Only Way to Restore Trust in the NSA The public has no faith left in the intelligence community or what the president says about it. A strong, independent special prosecutor needs to clean up the mess. Bruce Schneier Sep 4 2013, 6:00 AM ET Michaela Rehle/Reuters I've recently seen two articles speculating on the NSA's capability, and practice, of spying on members of Congress and other elected officials. The evidence is all circumstantial and smacks of conspiracy thinking -- and I have no idea whether any of it is true or not -- but it's a good illustration of what happens when trust in a public institution fails . The NSA has repeatedly lied about the extent of its spying program. James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, has lied about it to Congress. Top-secret documents provided by Edward Snowden, and reported on by the Guardian and other newspapers, repeatedly show that the NSA's surveillance systems are monitoring the communications of American citizens. The DEA has used this information to apprehend drug smugglers, then lied about it in court. The IRS has used this information to find tax cheats, then lied about it. It's even been used to arrest a copyright violator. It seems that every time there is an allegation against the NSA, no matter how outlandish, it turns out to be true. Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald has been playing this well, dribbling the information out one scandal at a time. It's looking more and more as if the NSA doesn't know what Snowden took. It's hard for someone to lie convincingly if he doesn't know what the opposition actually knows. All of this denying and lying results in us not trusting anything the NSA says, anything the president says about the NSA, or anything companies say about their involvement with the NSA. We know secrecy corrupts, and we see that corruption. There's simply no credibility, and -- the real problem -- no way for us to verify anything these people might say. We need something like South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where government and corporate employees can come forward and tell their stories about NSA eavesdropping without fear of reprisal. It's a perfect environment for conspiracy theories to take root: no trust, assuming the worst, no way to verify the facts. Think JFK assassination theories. Think 9/11 conspiracies. Think UFOs. For all we know, the NSA might be spying on elected officials. Edward Snowden said that he had the ability to spy on anyone in the U.S., in real time, from his desk. His remarks were belittled, but it turns out he was right . This is not going to improve anytime soon. Greenwald and other reporters are still poring over Snowden's documents, and will continue to report stories about NSA overreach, lawbreaking, abuses, and privacy violations well into next year. The "independent" review that Obama promised of these surveillance programs will not help, because it will lack both the power to discover everything the NSA is doing and the ability to relay that information to the public. It's time to start cleaning up this mess. We need a special prosecutor, one not tied to the military, the corporations complicit in these programs, or the current political leadership, whether Democrat or Republican. This prosecutor needs free rein to go through the NSA's files and discover the full extent of what the agency is doing, as well as enough technical staff who have the capability to understand it. He needs the power to subpoena government officials and take their sworn testimony. He needs the ability to bring criminal indictments where appropriate. And, of course, he needs the requisite security clearance to see it all. We also need something like South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where both government and corporate employees can come forward and tell their stories about NSA eavesdropping without fear of reprisal. Comparisons are springing up between today's NSA and the FBI of the 1950s and 1960s. We never managed to rein in J. Edgar Hoover's FBI -- it took his death for change to occur. I don't think we'll get so lucky with the NSA. Yes, this will overturn the paradigm of keeping everything the NSA does secret, but Snowden and the reporters he's shared documents with have already done that. The secrets are going to come out, and the journalists doing the outing are not going to be sympathetic to the NSA. If the agency were smart, it'd realize that the best thing it could do would be to get ahead of the leaks. The result needs to be a public report about the NSA's abuses, detailed enough that public watchdog groups can be convinced that everything is known. Only then can our country go about cleaning up the mess: shutting down programs, reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act system, and reforming surveillance law to make it absolutely clear that even the NSA cannot eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. Comparisons are springing up between today's NSA and the FBI of the 1950s and 1960s, and between NSA Director Keith Alexander and J. Edgar Hoover. We never managed to rein in Hoover's FBI -- it took his death for change to occur. I don't think we'll get so lucky with the NSA. While Alexander has enormous personal power, much of his power comes from the institution he leads. When he is replaced, that institution will remain. Trust is essential for society to function. Without it, conspiracy theories naturally take hold. Even worse, without it we fail as a country and as a culture. It's time to reinstitute the ideals of democracy: The government works for the people, open government is the best way to protect against government abuse, and a government keeping secrets from is people is a rare exception, not the norm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Sep 5 02:27:04 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:27:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] Australian IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130905062704.GD9699@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Hi Angela, I'm presently trying to arrange my trip to Indonesia so I could visit auIGF as well, and if I manage it, I might be interested in participating in your workshop. Admittedly I know very little about the situation in Australia, but perhaps I could bring some outside perspective to the discussion. -- Tapani Tarvainen On Aug 21 16:07, Angela Daly (angelacdaly at gmail.com) wrote: > Dear all, > > The Australian national IGF ('auIGF') is taking place the week before the > international IGF, on 16 and 17 October in Melbourne. This timing was > deliberate in order to attract people who were going to be in the broader > region anyway to attend the meeting in Bali. More info about the event here: > http://www.igf.org.au/ > > I am organising a workshop at the auIGF on 'digital intellectual property > in Australia' on Thurs 17 October. If anyone on this list would be > interesting in participating in the workshop, please contact me via private > message. Unfortunately I don't think there is any money to cover travel > expenses, but if you happen to be in the area anyway and/or can fund > yourself, please get in touch. > > Thanks, > > Angela > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Thu Sep 5 07:32:38 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 07:32:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] United States Expands Support for Multistakeholder Internet Governance Message-ID: Released to the Press yesterday http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/09/213799.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 5 08:07:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:37:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [New post] Government to Release Hundreds of Documents Related to NSA Surveillance References: <52985383.102177.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <42CCBD5D-0D4F-43DE-852D-C42A3D64C55E@hserus.net> --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: Threatpost > Date: 5 September 2013 17:21:16 IST > To: suresh at hserus.net > Subject: [New post] Government to Release Hundreds of Documents Related to NSA Surveillance > > > New post on Threatpost > > > Government to Release Hundreds of Documents Related to NSA Surveillance > by Dennis Fisher > In response to a lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Department of Justice is preparing to release a trove of documents related to the government's secret interpretation of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. The declassified documents will include previously secret opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. > > The decision by the Justice Department to release the documents is the second legal victory in recent weeks for the EFF related to the National Security Agency's intelligence collection programs. In August, the group won the release of a 2011 FISC opinion that revealed that the court ruled that some of the NSA's collection programs were illegal and unconstitutional. The newest decision will result in the release of hundreds of pages of documents related to the way the government has been interpreting Section 215, which is the measure upon which some of the NSA's surveillance programs are based. > > In a status report released Wednesday regarding the EFF's suit against the Department of Justice, attorneys for the government said that they will release the documents by Sept. 10. > > "Orders and opinions of the FISC issued from January 1, 2004, to June 6, 2011, that contain a significant legal interpretation of the government’s authority or use of its authority under Section 215; and responsive 'significant documents, procedures, or legal analyses incorporated into FISC opinions or orders and treated as binding by the Department of Justice or the National Security Agency'," the status report says. > > It's not clear at this point exactly what the documents to be released will contain or how much of the information will be redacted. But the decision by the government to release the documents counts as a major milestone in the lawsuit against the Justice Department over the use of Section 215. > > "While we applaud the government for finally releasing the opinions, it is not simply a case of magnanimity. The Justice Department is releasing this information because a court has ordered it to do so in response to EFF’s FOIA lawsuit, which was filed on the tenth anniversary of the enactment of the Patriot Act—nearly two years ago," Trevor Timm of the EFF said. > > "For most of the duration of the lawsuit, the government fought tooth and nail to keep every page of its interpretations secret, even once arguing it should not even be compelled to release the number of pages that their opinions consisted of. It was not until the start of the release of documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden that the government’s position became untenable and the court ordered the government to begin the declassification review process." > > In another development related to the NSA's intelligence-gathering capabilities and methods, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), the lead author of the PATRIOT Act, submitted an amicus brief in support of the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit against the NSA over the agency's methods. > > "I stand by the Patriot Act and support the specific targeting of terrorists by our government, but the proper balance has not been struck between civil rights and American security," said Sensenbrenner. "A large, intrusive government-however benevolent it claims to be-is not immune from the simple truth that centralized power threatens liberty. Americans are increasingly wary that Washington is violating the privacy rights guaranteed to us by the Fourth Amendment." > > > > Dennis Fisher | September 5, 2013 at 7:51 am | URL: http://wp.me/p3AjUX-qA1 > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://kasperskycontenthub.com/threatpost/government-to-release-hundreds-of-documents-related-to-nsa-surveillance/102177 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Sep 5 16:32:30 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 22:32:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [New post] Government to Release Hundreds of Documents Related to NSA Surveillance In-Reply-To: <42CCBD5D-0D4F-43DE-852D-C42A3D64C55E@hserus.net> References: <52985383.102177.0@wordpress.com> <42CCBD5D-0D4F-43DE-852D-C42A3D64C55E@hserus.net> Message-ID: *BRAVO EFF* Louis - - - On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > *From:* Threatpost > *Date:* 5 September 2013 17:21:16 IST > *To:* suresh at hserus.net > *Subject:* *[New post] Government to Release Hundreds of Documents > Related to NSA Surveillance* > > Dennis Fisher posted: "In response to a lawsuit by the Electronic > Frontier Foundation, the Department of Justice is preparing to release a > trove of documents related to the government's secret interpretation of > Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. The declassified documents will inc" > New post on *Threatpost* > Government to > Release Hundreds of Documents Related to NSA Surveillance by > Dennis Fisher > > In response to a lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the > Department of Justice is preparing to release a trove of documents related > to the government's secret interpretation of Section 215 of the PATRIOT > Act. The declassified documents will include previously secret opinions of > the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. > > The decision by the Justice Department to release the documents is the > second legal victory in recent weeks for the EFF related to the National > Security Agency's intelligence collection programs. In August, the group > won the release of a 2011 FISC opinionthat revealed that the court ruled that some of the NSA's collection > programs were illegal and unconstitutional. The newest decision will result > in the release of hundreds of pages of documents related to the way the > government has been interpreting Section 215, which is the measure upon > which some of the NSA's surveillance programs are based. > > In a status report released Wednesday regarding the EFF's suit against the > Department of Justice, attorneys for the government said that they will > release the documents by Sept. 10. > > "Orders and opinions of the FISC issued from January 1, 2004, to June 6, > 2011, that contain a significant legal interpretation of the government’s > authority or use of its authority under Section 215; and responsive > 'significant documents, procedures, or legal analyses incorporated into > FISC opinions or orders and treated as binding by the Department of Justice > or the National Security Agency'," the status reportsays. > > It's not clear at this point exactly what the documents to be released > will contain or how much of the information will be redacted. But the > decision by the government to release the documents counts as a major > milestone in the lawsuit against the Justice Department over the use of > Section 215. > > "While we applaud the government for finally releasing the opinions, it is > not simply a case of magnanimity. The Justice Department is releasing this > information because a court has ordered it to do so in response to EFF’s > FOIA lawsuit, which was filed on the tenth anniversary of the enactment of > the Patriot Act—nearly two years ago," Trevor Timm of the EFFsaid. > > "For most of the duration of the lawsuit, the government fought tooth and > nail to keep every page of its interpretations secret, even once arguing > it should not even be > compelled to release the *number of pages* that their opinions consisted > of. It was not until the start of the release of documents leaked by NSA > whistleblower Edward Snowden that the government’s position became > untenable and the court ordered the government to begin the > declassification review process." > > In another development related to the NSA's intelligence-gathering > capabilities and methods, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), the lead author > of the PATRIOT Act, submitted an amicus brief in support of the American > Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit against the NSA over the agency's methods. > > "I stand by the Patriot Act and support the specific targeting of > terrorists by our government, but the proper balance has not been struck > between civil rights and American security," said Sensenbrenner. "A large, > intrusive government-however benevolent it claims to be-is not immune from > the simple truth that centralized power threatens liberty. Americans are > increasingly wary that Washington is violating the privacy rights > guaranteed to us by the Fourth Amendment." > > > *Dennis Fisher *| September 5, 2013 at 7:51 am | URL: > http://wp.me/p3AjUX-qA1 > > Comment > See all comments > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 5 16:36:07 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 22:36:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bruce Schneier: The Only Way to Restore Trust in the NSA In-Reply-To: <047e01cea9e1$8af26440$a0d72cc0$@gmail.com> References: <047e01cea9e1$8af26440$a0d72cc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130905223607.63bcc2c8@quill> Michael Gurstein wrote: > What Schneier is suggesting would go a long way to resolving some of > the issues that Snowden raises for US citizens but doesn't seem to > address what the NSA has been doing in the rest of the world--the EU, > the UN, Mexico, Brazil that we know of now. What can/could/should be > done about those and by whom? > > Bruce Schneier The intelligence agencies of every country need, in addition to their being accountable to the people and the political institutions of their own country, to be made accountable to the people of the world. Any country can start this process by institutionalizing such accountability, with the goal of making it as trustworthy as possible. Schneier's suggestions provide good guidance, with the difference that in what I suggest, the goal would be to gain trust among the people outside the country. For example, analogous to Schneier's suggestion of a “special prosecutor”, the “special prosecutor of violations of the /human right to privacy/ of foreigners” should be a foreigner with international credibility, with a technical staff that also consists of 100% foreigners. Over time, experience will show how such institutions can be set up so that they're effective, and what works less well. Eventually, minimal requirements for such institutions (that are sufficient to achieve effective international protection of the human right to privacy) can be distilled into a treaty. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 5 17:15:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 04:15:29 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] The US government has betrayed the internet. We need to take it back In-Reply-To: <45688038-2BD1-4140-A037-7B879C7813F9@warpspeed.com> References: <45688038-2BD1-4140-A037-7B879C7813F9@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <02be01ceaa7d$14d80b60$3e882220$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: listmom at warpspeed.com [mailto:listmom at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:08 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The US government has betrayed the internet. We need to take it back The US government has betrayed the internet. We need to take it back The NSA has undermined a fundamental social contract. We engineers built the internet - and now we have to fix it By Bruce Schneier Sep 5 2013 Government and industry have betrayed the internet, and us. By subverting the internet at every level to make it a vast, multi-layered and robust surveillance platform, the NSA has undermined a fundamental social contract. The companies that build and manage our internet infrastructure, the companies that create and sell us our hardware and software, or the companies that host our data: we can no longer trust them to be ethical internet stewards. This is not the internet the world needs, or the internet its creators envisioned. We need to take it back. And by we, I mean the engineering community. Yes, this is primarily a political problem, a policy matter that requires political intervention. But this is also an engineering problem, and there are several things engineers can - and should - do. One, we should expose. If you do not have a security clearance, and if you have not received a National Security Letter, you are not bound by a federal confidentially requirements or a gag order. If you have been contacted by the NSA to subvert a product or protocol, you need to come forward with your story. Your employer obligations don't cover illegal or unethical activity. If you work with classified data and are truly brave, expose what you know. We need whistleblowers. We need to know how exactly how the NSA and other agencies are subverting routers, switches, the internet backbone, encryption technologies and cloud systems. I already have five stories from people like you, and I've just started collecting. I want 50. There's safety in numbers, and this form of civil disobedience is the moral thing to do. Two, we can design. We need to figure out how to re-engineer the internet to prevent this kind of wholesale spying. We need new techniques to prevent communications intermediaries from leaking private information. We can make surveillance expensive again. In particular, we need open protocols, open implementations, open systems - these will be harder for the NSA to subvert. The Internet Engineering Task Force, the group that defines the standards that make the internet run, has a meeting planned for early November in Vancouver. This group needs dedicate its next meeting to this task. This is an emergency, and demands an emergency response. Three, we can influence governance. I have resisted saying this up to now, and I am saddened to say it, but the US has proved to be an unethical steward of the internet. The UK is no better. The NSA's actions are legitimizing the internet abuses by China, Russia, Iran and others. We need to figure out new means of internet governance, ones that makes it harder for powerful tech countries to monitor everything. For example, we need to demand transparency, oversight, and accountability from our governments and corporations. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 5 17:22:05 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 04:22:05 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Revealed: How the NSA works with companies to crack your encrypted data -- Reported in partnership with The New York Times and ProPublica In-Reply-To: References: <79e377d3-f757-417e-8283-72f524fc0bb1@xtnvmta1157.xt.local> Message-ID: <02c801ceaa7e$02b23e00$0816ba00$@gmail.com> From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:05 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Fwd: Revealed: How the NSA works with companies to crack your encrypted data -- Reported in partnership with The New York Times and ProPublica ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "The Guardian" Date: Sep 5, 2013 3:06 PM Subject: Revealed: How the NSA works with companies to crack your encrypted data -- Reported in partnership with The New York Times and ProPublica To: Cc: Among new revelations from documents shared with the Guardian by Edward Snowden: The NSA's highly secretive measures to collaborate with tech companies to influence how products are designed, inserting vulnerabilities into security software advertised to consumers as keeping e-mails, banking and medical records safe. Experts warn the agency measures are 'undermining the very fabric of the internet'. Full story: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-secur ity Don't want breaking news notifications? Unsubscribe with one click . Check out all our emails Manage your account Email notifications are in beta. Read our blogpost about the feature , and drop us an email if you have any feedback. Guardian News & Media Limited - a member of Guardian Media Group PLC. Registered Office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9GU. Registered in England No. 908396 Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 5 17:22:05 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 04:22:05 +0700 Subject: WHOOPS: FW: [governance] New Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is Not Your Friend, Get Over It) Message-ID: <02cd01ceaa7e$0426b590$0c7420b0$@gmail.com> I seem to have sent an internal URL for my blogpost… Sorry… Correct URLs http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/the-internet-global-governance-and-the-surveillance-state-in-a-post-snowden-world-the-internet-is-not-your-friend-get-over-it/ http://tinyurl.com/khja796 M Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:45 PM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: Fwd: [governance] New Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is Not Your Friend, Get Over It) it asks for a password.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is Not Your Friend, Get Over It) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:29:12 +0700 From: michael gurstein Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"michael gurstein" To: , "bestbits" , This might interest some... Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is not your Friend, Get Over It) http://tinyurl.com/mwhlea4 Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 5 22:17:46 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 07:47:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Richard Stallman on Snowden/ NSA affair Message-ID: <52293B4A.50503@itforchange.net> What We Need to Learn from Snowden Vol - XLVIII No. 36, September 07, 2013 | Richard Stallman * Postscript Only by organising politically for human rights, including privacy rights, can we raise awareness of the dangers of Big Brother state surveillance. This article, copyrighted to Richard Stallman (rms at gnu.org ), President of the Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org ) and creator of the GNU operating system, is licensed under the Creative Commons No Derivatives 3.0 License. Edward Snowden heroically demonstrated to the world the extent to which the United States (US) and some other countries have converted the internet into a system for general surveillance of everyone. They do this largely on the basis of corporations’ surveillance: even if a company only wants to know what sort of ads to show you, the data it collected will be available to Big Brother. We knew already that tyrannical states such as China, Tunisia, Libya and Iran did their utmost to monitor internet users. We had no proof that “free” countries did it too. For years, I have said in my speeches that I suspected the US government used the Patriot Act periodically to collect all the personal data from certain companies, simply because I saw that that law would permit it and the US government tends to stretch its legal powers; however, such suspicions are easy to dismiss as “paranoia”. Thanks to Snowden, we know the US really does this with telephone companies. Meanwhile, India plans to practise phone and internet surveillance without even the flimsy “limits” that govern the National Security Agency (NSA). This amounts to surveillance such as Stalin could only dream of. Even he could not make a list of every conversation, every purchase, every movement of every person. The US has nearly reached this level. India, with its national identity cards, is headed the same way. But it can get even worse. Manufacturers of mobile devices now try to direct users to store their data in companies’ servers instead of their own computers. If you’re foolish enough to do this, the NSA can fish through your private data. In addition, many proprietary programs and devices spy on their users. On the Amazon Kindle, Amazon has access to all the “marginal notes” that the user makes about a book. If you use Windows, the NSA can break the security via bugs that Microsoft has reported to the NSA but has not fixed. (See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/ u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html.) The US uses its massive surveillance to imprison the whistle-blowers that inform us about government crimes such as torture and massacres. When we cannot have secrets from the state, the state can keep the most horrible things secret from us. Sad to say, the US is not alone in this; India also commits plenty of torture and massacres. Proposals to increase the level of surveillance cite certain standard reasons: typically, terrorism, pornography, or file-sharing. Terrorism is a real danger, but it is a small danger when compared to a state that the people can no longer ­control. As for pornography and file-sharing, they should be legal – if you don’t like them, don’t use them. You can resist some of these forms of surveillance by limiting the data that you let anyone collect about your daily activities. Buying with a credit card informs the bank (and state surveillance) what you bought and, if you’re in a store, where you are; I pay cash. Carrying a mobile phone tells the phone company (and state surveillance) everywhere you go; I refuse. Listening to music from a server account tells the company (and state surveillance) what you listen to, and may also restrict what you can do with it; I keep copies on my own computers or media. I don’t give personal data to websites, aside from when I post a comment on one, and I avoid connecting my computer directly to those sites. However, it is impossible to fully avoid surveillance while using certain sorts of digital technology. For instance, there is no way to do email without surveillance. You can keep the contents of the message private by encrypting it – for instance, with the GNU Privacy Guard – but there is no way to stop Big Brother from seeking out who you exchange mail with. We can do better by organising collectively against surveillance. This means campaigning to change laws so as to reduce general surveillance. When people organise such campaigns, typically, the first proposal is to legally limit “access” to the accumulated data. This is inadequate to solve the problem. When the state wants to find an excuse to imprison a whistle-blower, it will find ways to satisfy whatever requirements there are. To avoid the total surveillance state, we need to limit the col­lection of data. Systems that log activities must be designed not to keep personal identifying data for very long, except when there is a prior court order to keep the data about a particular person. We must replace the advertising-based system for funding websites with an anonymous method for paying to access a page. To raise awareness of the issue, and invite the state’s surveillance agents to search their consciences about what they are doing, I now include the following note in most of my outgoing mail: “To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden’s example.” Here I appeal to these agents in the name of their oath of office. Snowden has demonstrated that surveillance agents can understand that the Patriot Act is not the same as patriotism; they can recognise their duty, and may have the courage to act on it. However, I do not expect large numbers of agents to follow their consciences to oppose the wrongdoing of the state. To stop that wrong­doing, we need to organise politically for ­human rights, including privacy rights. http://www.epw.in/postscript/what-we-need-learn-snowden.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 5 22:36:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:06:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bruce Schneier: The Only Way to Restore Trust in the NSA In-Reply-To: <20130905223607.63bcc2c8@quill> References: <047e01cea9e1$8af26440$a0d72cc0$@gmail.com> <20130905223607.63bcc2c8@quill> Message-ID: <52293FA2.3080904@itforchange.net> Norbert I am not very sanguine about the possibility of an office/ authority taking care of foreigner’s rights, and also manned by foreigners. (Btw, there are foreigners and there are foreigners, Canada for instance being much less foreign to the US then Sri Lanka, and I am not even mentioning Iran where too human beings happen to reside.) Apart from being conceptually difficult, there is no precedent for such kind of thing. On the other hand, there are precendents of an international system enforcing international law for all people of the world in all countries, that allow themselves to be subject to that international system - International criminal court of justice, for instance. Therefore, this latter may be the more likely route to go. If we need a truth and reconciliation commission that Bruce Schneier seeks in the article, it needs to be global. US, and those closely allied to it - whether because of residing in certain countries, or because of personal persuasion, should get over this thing about US solving the world's problems, and come to terms with interacting with the rest of the world on equal terms. parminder On Friday 06 September 2013 02:06 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> What Schneier is suggesting would go a long way to resolving some of >> the issues that Snowden raises for US citizens but doesn't seem to >> address what the NSA has been doing in the rest of the world--the EU, >> the UN, Mexico, Brazil that we know of now. What can/could/should be >> done about those and by whom? >> >> Bruce Schneier > The intelligence agencies of every country need, in addition to > their being accountable to the people and the political institutions of > their own country, to be made accountable to the people of the world. > > Any country can start this process by institutionalizing such > accountability, with the goal of making it as trustworthy as possible. > Schneier's suggestions provide good guidance, with the difference that > in what I suggest, the goal would be to gain trust among the people > outside the country. For example, analogous to Schneier's suggestion > of a “special prosecutor”, the “special prosecutor of violations of the > /human right to privacy/ of foreigners” should be a foreigner with > international credibility, with a technical staff that also consists > of 100% foreigners. > > Over time, experience will show how such institutions can be set up so > that they're effective, and what works less well. > > Eventually, minimal requirements for such institutions (that are > sufficient to achieve effective international protection of the human > right to privacy) can be distilled into a treaty. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Sep 5 23:34:48 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:34:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty Message-ID: In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an international treaty for a free and open Internet. In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations." Naïve, or ahead of the curve? -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 5 23:36:25 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 03:36:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] WH Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment In-Reply-To: <6DC654CD-C9C7-47FB-B4E7-8CC7731E528E@farber.net> References: <52291644.6020409@well.com>,<6DC654CD-C9C7-47FB-B4E7-8CC7731E528E@farber.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B263581@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI. It might be interesting to attempt to formulate an igc rough consensus submission to reviewgroup at dni.gov before the 10.4 deadline. Nah, what was I thinking : ) Lee ________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 8:14 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] WH Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment Begin forwarded message: From: Mike Liebhold > Subject: WH Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment Date: September 5, 2013 7:39:48 PM EDT To: Dave Farber > For IP if you wish: http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/60323228143/review-group-on-global-signals-intelligence Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment September 4, 2013 On August 12, 2013 President Obama directed the establishment of the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. While the Review Group is administratively housed at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), it is conducting an independent review and will report to the President through the DNI. President Obama met with the members of the Review Group on August 27, Richard Clarke, Michael Morell, Geoffrey Stone, Cass Sunstein and Peter Swire. The President thanked the Members of the Group for taking on this important task and looks forward to hearing from them as their work proceeds. Seeking Public Comment The Review Group is seeking public comments on all matters that the President has directed it to examine, namely, how in light of advancements in communications technologies, the United States can employ its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while respecting our commitment to privacy and civil liberties, recognizing our need to maintain the public trust, and reducing the risk of unauthorized disclosure. Comments can be provided via reviewgroup at dni.gov. The deadline for public submissions is October 4, 2013. The comments you provide to the Review Group will be used to inform the group’s deliberations. Review Group Privacy and Comment Policy Your comments will become part of the official record of the Review Group’s activity and will be retained consistent with applicable policy and legal requirements. At this time, the Review Group is receiving comments only, and will not be responding to submitters. However, the Review Group may determine it appropriate to the public debate to post your comments publicly. Accordingly, any personal information you provide in the comments, or in an address or signature block, may be disclosed. Providing a comment is voluntary, and implies your consent to publication of the comment and any personal information contained in it. Should the Review Group post comments, it will review all comments prior to posting and will not post comments that contain vulgar or abusive language; personal attacks of any kind; offensive terms that target specific groups; spam or comments that are clearly “off topic”; commercial promotions; information that promotes or opposes any political party, person campaigning for elected office, or any ballot proposition; reports of criminal or suspicious activity - if you have information for law enforcement, please contact your local police agency; unsolicited proposals, or other business ideas or inquiries; solicitations for contracting or commercial business; or any claims, demands, informal or formal complaints, or any other form of legal and/or administrative notices or processes. Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 6 00:19:00 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 09:49:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] WH Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B263581@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <52291644.6020409@well.com>,<6DC654CD-C9C7-47FB-B4E7-8CC7731E528E@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B263581@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <522957B4.2060609@itforchange.net> The mandate of the review group itself is flawed..... "The Review Group is seeking public comments on all matters that the President has directed it to examine, namely, how in light of advancements in communications technologies, the United States can employ its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy.............". No international law allows breach of privacy just to advance foreign policy..... National security is a different matter. parminder On Friday 06 September 2013 09:06 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > FYI. > > It might be interesting to attempt to formulate an igc rough consensus > submission to reviewgroup at dni.gov before > the 10.4 deadline. > > Nah, what was I thinking : ) > > Lee > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* David Farber [dave at farber.net] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 8:14 PM > *To:* ip > *Subject:* [IP] WH Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence > Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Mike Liebhold > > *Subject: **WH Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection > and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment* > *Date: *September 5, 2013 7:39:48 PM EDT > *To: *Dave Farber > > > For IP if you wish: > http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/60323228143/review-group-on-global-signals-intelligence > > Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) > *Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and > Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment * > > *September 4, 2013* > > On August 12, 2013 President Obama directed the establishment > of > the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. > While the Review Group is administratively housed at the Office of the > Director of National Intelligence (DNI), it is conducting an > independent review and will report to the President through the DNI. > > President Obama met with the members of the Review Group > on > August 27, Richard Clarke, Michael Morell, Geoffrey Stone, Cass > Sunstein and Peter Swire. The President thanked the Members of the > Group for taking on this important task and looks forward to hearing > from them as their work proceeds. > > *Seeking Public Comment* > > The Review Group is seeking public comments on all matters that the > President has directed it to examine, namely, how in light of > advancements in communications technologies, the United States can > employ its technical collection capabilities in a manner that > optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign > policy while respecting our commitment to privacy and civil liberties, > recognizing our need to maintain the public trust, and reducing the > risk of unauthorized disclosure. Comments can be provided via > reviewgroup at dni.gov . The deadline for > public submissions is October 4, 2013. > > The comments you provide to the Review Group will be used to inform > the group’s deliberations. > > *Review Group Privacy and Comment Policy* > > /Your comments will become part of the official record of the Review > Group’s activity and will be retained consistent with applicable > policy and legal requirements. At this time, the Review Group is > receiving comments only, and will not be responding to submitters. > However, the Review Group may determine it appropriate to the public > debate to post your comments publicly. Accordingly, any personal > information you provide in the comments, or in an address or signature > block, may be disclosed. Providing a comment is voluntary, and implies > your consent to publication of the comment and any personal > information contained in it./ > > /Should the Review Group post comments, it will review all comments > prior to posting and will not post comments that contain vulgar or > abusive language; personal attacks of any kind; offensive terms that > target specific groups; spam or comments that are clearly “off topic”; > commercial promotions; information that promotes or opposes any > political party, person campaigning for elected office, or any ballot > proposition; reports of criminal or suspicious activity - if you have > information for law enforcement, please contact your local police > agency; unsolicited proposals, or other business ideas or inquiries; > solicitations for contracting or commercial business; or any claims, > demands, informal or formal complaints, or any other form of legal > and/or administrative notices or processes./ > > > > Archives > | > Modify > > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > [Powered by Listbox] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 6 00:28:40 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 09:58:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party > manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: > > "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an > international treaty for a free and open Internet. > > In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared > the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that > people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An > international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations." > > Naïve, or ahead of the curve? Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after the architecture is rather useless. I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of time, far worse, it being naive? Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy and global public interest, parminder > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 6 00:33:25 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:33:25 +0700 Subject: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <046f01ceaaba$3bc33190$b34994b0$@gmail.com> It is hard to imagine what will be presented at the IGF in Bali (interesting exercise to think about how much of what we all listened to in Baku beyond the blah blah were lies, half-truths, misdirections--sometimes deliberate and conscious and in other cases (one presumes/hopes) simply a naïve acceptance of the expressed benign intentions of one's countrymen, governments, spokesfolks for the brand name heroes of the corporate sector So, what could be the possible ways of forking away from the Surveillance State, if not some sort of international treaty/framework agreement? It is clear that many countries would oppose (particularly the grand alliance of those where the various elements of a Surveillance State are already fairly firmly in place) but one would think that at least some others would support, along with Civil Society (?), the technical community (?) and even the more far-sighted elements of the private sector. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 10:35 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an international treaty for a free and open Internet. In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations." Naïve, or ahead of the curve? -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 6 00:53:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:23:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In-Reply-To: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> References: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7BB9CC62-44EF-436D-AD73-7B7DDF1C1D40@hserus.net> The internet is quite changeable and applications on it are too. However, it takes 1. A valid proposal 2. Valid use cases 3. An orderly transition plan before any sort of significant change is possible in any mature system at all, even one that isn't used by people around the world. It requires rather different skills than just political polemic to accomplish this though Lessigisms such as "code is law" (or architecture is policy for that matter) aren't any particular good in this situation, any more than other overly broad generalizations are, reduced to soundbite quotes or not. --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 9:58, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: >> >> "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an international treaty for a free and open Internet. >> >> In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations." >> >> Naïve, or ahead of the curve? > > Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after the architecture is rather useless. > > I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of time, far worse, it being naive? > > Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy and global public interest, > > parminder > > > >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 6 00:55:30 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 10:25:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In-Reply-To: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> References: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net> On Friday 06 September 2013 09:58 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party >> manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: >> >> "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an >> international treaty for a free and open Internet. >> >> In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that >> declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same >> rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined >> online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for >> future generations." >> >> Naïve, or ahead of the curve? > > Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of > the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly > set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the > adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after > the architecture is rather useless. > > I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too > early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing > that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it > may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is > already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and > evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to > develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As > more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the > Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements > in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for > holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of > time, far worse, it being naive? > > Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global > Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, > sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy > and global public interest, See http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy ,for instance, for new privacy guidelines from the OECD . A few quotes from the website.... , "Security and privacy are essential for the Internet economy to continue to serve as a platform for innovation, new sources of economic growth and social development. The OECD focuses on the development of better policies to ensure that security and privacy foster economic and social prosperity in an open an interconnected digital world." "This work is carried out by the OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) , under the Committee for Information, Computers and Communications Policy (ICCP)." Sure, naive and ahead of the curve for the not so rich world to aspire to democratic participation in what affects them so centrally! parminder > > parminder > > > >> >> -- >> >> *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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 6 01:00:44 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:30:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In-Reply-To: <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net> References: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3AC0D62F-EE16-479E-985B-364745028484@hserus.net> Yes but intent is another thing entirely. Getting inspired by The Pirate Bay surely shows a sterling commitment to the idea of free warez, free movies and music etc but beyond that? And policy recommendations / best practices / standards are entirely different from political campaigns of any sort. --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 10:25, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 06 September 2013 09:58 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: >>> >>> "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an international treaty for a free and open Internet. >>> >>> In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations." >>> >>> Naïve, or ahead of the curve? >> >> Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after the architecture is rather useless. >> >> I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of time, far worse, it being naive? >> >> Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy and global public interest, > > > See http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy ,for instance, for new privacy guidelines from the OECD . A few quotes from the website.... > , > "Security and privacy are essential for the Internet economy to continue to serve as a platform for innovation, new sources of economic growth and social development. The OECD focuses on the development of better policies to ensure that security and privacy foster economic and social prosperity in an open an interconnected digital world." > > > > "This work is carried out by the OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP), under the Committee for Information, Computers and Communications Policy (ICCP)." > > Sure, naive and ahead of the curve for the not so rich world to aspire to democratic participation in what affects them so centrally! > > parminder > > > >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 6 01:29:59 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:29:59 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In-Reply-To: <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net> References: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <04db01ceaac2$3c69ff40$b53dfdc0$@gmail.com> Parminder, The issue of "trust" as an underlying requirement of the digital economy has a very long history in the OECD. It will be extremely interesting to see how the pious statements concerning Trust, Privacy, the Open Internet etc. eminating from that source will now deal with the truly profound shattering of trust in the Internet as preciptated by Mr. Snowden's revelations. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 11:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty On Friday 06 September 2013 09:58 AM, parminder wrote: On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an international treaty for a free and open Internet. In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations." Naïve, or ahead of the curve? Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after the architecture is rather useless. I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of time, far worse, it being naive? Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy and global public interest, See http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy ,for instance, for new privacy guidelines from the OECD . A few quotes from the website.... , "Security and privacy are essential for the Internet economy to continue to serve as a platform for innovation, new sources of economic growth and social development. The OECD focuses on the development of better policies to ensure that security and privacy foster economic and social prosperity in an open an interconnected digital world." "This work is carried out by the OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) , under the Committee for Information, Computers and Communications Policy (ICCP)." Sure, naive and ahead of the curve for the not so rich world to aspire to democratic participation in what affects them so centrally! parminder parminder -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 6 01:50:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:20:27 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In-Reply-To: <04db01ceaac2$3c69ff40$b53dfdc0$@gmail.com> References: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net> <04db01ceaac2$3c69ff40$b53dfdc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48299310-2935-4CCC-AEF8-E1041D4E6160@hserus.net> I am sorry, "pious"? If so, a lot of civil society stands guilty of asking for the exact same thing. --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 10:59, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Parminder, > > The issue of "trust" as an underlying requirement of the digital economy has a very long history in the OECD. > > It will be extremely interesting to see how the pious statements concerning Trust, Privacy, the Open Internet etc. eminating from that source will now deal with the truly profound shattering of trust in the Internet as preciptated by Mr. Snowden's revelations. > > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 11:56 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty > > > On Friday 06 September 2013 09:58 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: > > "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an international treaty for a free and open Internet. > > In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations." > > Naïve, or ahead of the curve? > > Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after the architecture is rather useless. > > I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of time, far worse, it being naive? > > Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy and global public interest, > > > See http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy ,for instance, for new privacy guidelines from the OECD . A few quotes from the website.... > , > "Security and privacy are essential for the Internet economy to continue to serve as a platform for innovation, new sources of economic growth and social development. The OECD focuses on the development of better policies to ensure that security and privacy foster economic and social prosperity in an open an interconnected digital world." > > > > "This work is carried out by the OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP), under the Committee for Information, Computers and Communications Policy (ICCP)." > > > > Sure, naive and ahead of the curve for the not so rich world to aspire to democratic participation in what affects them so centrally! > > parminder > > > > > > > parminder > > > > > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 6 02:02:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 11:32:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role Message-ID: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency (NSA) planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members. Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.” “Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,” the memo says. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all& This is the government to which we have entrusted the oversight of some essential infrastructural features of the Internet. Continuing on the subject of 'time to get real....'. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 6 02:25:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:25:23 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In-Reply-To: <48299310-2935-4CCC-AEF8-E1041D4E6160@hserus.net> References: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net> <04db01ceaac2$3c69ff40$b53dfdc0$@gmail.com> <48299310-2935-4CCC-AEF8-E1041D4E6160@hserus.net> Message-ID: <052701ceaac9$e62b5130$b281f390$@gmail.com> I'm assuming that (at least) most of the CS folks have been operating in good faith which as we now know is not the case for many of the leading country elements in the OECD. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 12:50 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: parminder; Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty I am sorry, "pious"? If so, a lot of civil society stands guilty of asking for the exact same thing. --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 10:59, "michael gurstein" wrote: Parminder, The issue of "trust" as an underlying requirement of the digital economy has a very long history in the OECD. It will be extremely interesting to see how the pious statements concerning Trust, Privacy, the Open Internet etc. eminating from that source will now deal with the truly profound shattering of trust in the Internet as preciptated by Mr. Snowden's revelations. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 11:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty On Friday 06 September 2013 09:58 AM, parminder wrote: On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an international treaty for a free and open Internet. In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations." Naïve, or ahead of the curve? Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after the architecture is rather useless. I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of time, far worse, it being naive? Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy and global public interest, See http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy ,for instance, for new privacy guidelines from the OECD . A few quotes from the website.... , "Security and privacy are essential for the Internet economy to continue to serve as a platform for innovation, new sources of economic growth and social development. The OECD focuses on the development of better policies to ensure that security and privacy foster economic and social prosperity in an open an interconnected digital world." "This work is carried out by the OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) , under the Committee for Information, Computers and Communications Policy (ICCP)." Sure, naive and ahead of the curve for the not so rich world to aspire to democratic participation in what affects them so centrally! parminder parminder -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 6 02:31:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:01:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty In-Reply-To: <052701ceaac9$e62b5130$b281f390$@gmail.com> References: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net> <04db01ceaac2$3c69ff40$b53dfdc0$@gmail.com> <48299310-2935-4CCC-AEF8-E1041D4E6160@hserus.net> <052701ceaac9$e62b5130$b281f390$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Possibly. OECD staff and invited experts (often from academia and civil society) who draft those are not to be faulted for that. --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 11:55, "michael gurstein" wrote: > I'm assuming that (at least) most of the CS folks have been operating in good faith which as we now know is not the case for many of the leading country elements in the OECD. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 12:50 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: parminder; > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty > > I am sorry, "pious"? If so, a lot of civil society stands guilty of asking for the exact same thing. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 06-Sep-2013, at 10:59, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Parminder, > > The issue of "trust" as an underlying requirement of the digital economy has a very long history in the OECD. > > It will be extremely interesting to see how the pious statements concerning Trust, Privacy, the Open Internet etc. eminating from that source will now deal with the truly profound shattering of trust in the Internet as preciptated by Mr. Snowden's revelations. > > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 11:56 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty > > > On Friday 06 September 2013 09:58 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/: > > "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an international treaty for a free and open Internet. > > In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations." > > Naïve, or ahead of the curve? > > Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after the architecture is rather useless. > > I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of time, far worse, it being naive? > > Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy and global public interest, > > > See http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy ,for instance, for new privacy guidelines from the OECD . A few quotes from the website.... > , > "Security and privacy are essential for the Internet economy to continue to serve as a platform for innovation, new sources of economic growth and social development. The OECD focuses on the development of better policies to ensure that security and privacy foster economic and social prosperity in an open an interconnected digital world." > > > > "This work is carried out by the OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP), under the Committee for Information, Computers and Communications Policy (ICCP)." > > > > Sure, naive and ahead of the curve for the not so rich world to aspire to democratic participation in what affects them so centrally! > > parminder > > > > > > > > parminder > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 6 02:47:29 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:17:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> BTW, I think people do know that ICANN needs US government's clearance (or is it, advice) to appoint its Chief Security Officer, and the current incumbent continues to be a 'sworn member' of the US government's Homeland Security Advisory Committee... No offence intended, but does not give me too much confidence. I also understand that ICANN is right now involved in various kind of issues related to securitisation of DNS and routing .... parminder On Friday 06 September 2013 11:32 AM, parminder wrote: > > Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency (NSA) > planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the > National Institute of Standards and Technology and later by > the International Organization for Standardization, which has > 163 countries as members. > > Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal > weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, > was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard > and aggressively pushed it on the international group, > privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.” > > “Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,” the memo says. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all& > > This is the government to which we have entrusted the oversight of > some essential infrastructural features of the Internet. > > Continuing on the subject of 'time to get real....'. > > parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Sep 6 03:03:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:03:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] WH Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment In-Reply-To: <522957B4.2060609@itforchange.net> References: <52291644.6020409@well.com> <6DC654CD-C9C7-47FB-B4E7-8CC7731E528E@farber.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B263581@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <522957B4.2060609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130906090339.3525d63e@quill> Sounds like a clear case for international civil society to submit a comment that they're going about this in a way that is totally wrong because it's disrespectful of international human rights law. I'm in favor of IGC drafting such a statement, as per Lee's suggestion. Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 06 Sep 2013 09:49:00 +0530 schrieb parminder : > > The mandate of the review group itself is flawed..... > > "The Review Group is seeking public comments on all matters that the > President has directed it to examine, namely, how in light of > advancements in communications technologies, the United States can > employ its technical collection capabilities in a manner that > optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign > policy.............". > > No international law allows breach of privacy just to advance foreign > policy..... National security is a different matter. > > parminder > > > On Friday 06 September 2013 09:06 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > FYI. > > > > It might be interesting to attempt to formulate an igc rough > > consensus submission to reviewgroup at dni.gov > > before the 10.4 deadline. > > > > Nah, what was I thinking : ) > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* David Farber [dave at farber.net] > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 8:14 PM > > *To:* ip > > *Subject:* [IP] WH Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence > > Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *Mike Liebhold > > > *Subject: **WH Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence > > Collection and Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment* > > *Date: *September 5, 2013 7:39:48 PM EDT > > *To: *Dave Farber > > > > > For IP if you wish: > > http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/60323228143/review-group-on-global-signals-intelligence > > > > Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) > > *Review Group on Global Signals Intelligence Collection and > > Communications Technologies Seeks Public Comment * > > > > *September 4, 2013* > > > > On August 12, 2013 President Obama directed the establishment > > > > of the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications > > Technologies. While the Review Group is administratively housed at > > the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), it is > > conducting an independent review and will report to the President > > through the DNI. > > > > President Obama met with the members of the Review Group > > > > on August 27, Richard Clarke, Michael Morell, Geoffrey Stone, Cass > > Sunstein and Peter Swire. The President thanked the Members of the > > Group for taking on this important task and looks forward to > > hearing from them as their work proceeds. > > > > *Seeking Public Comment* > > > > The Review Group is seeking public comments on all matters that the > > President has directed it to examine, namely, how in light of > > advancements in communications technologies, the United States can > > employ its technical collection capabilities in a manner that > > optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign > > policy while respecting our commitment to privacy and civil > > liberties, recognizing our need to maintain the public trust, and > > reducing the risk of unauthorized disclosure. Comments can be > > provided via reviewgroup at dni.gov . The > > deadline for public submissions is October 4, 2013. > > > > The comments you provide to the Review Group will be used to inform > > the group’s deliberations. > > > > *Review Group Privacy and Comment Policy* > > > > /Your comments will become part of the official record of the > > Review Group’s activity and will be retained consistent with > > applicable policy and legal requirements. At this time, the Review > > Group is receiving comments only, and will not be responding to > > submitters. However, the Review Group may determine it appropriate > > to the public debate to post your comments publicly. Accordingly, > > any personal information you provide in the comments, or in an > > address or signature block, may be disclosed. Providing a comment > > is voluntary, and implies your consent to publication of the > > comment and any personal information contained in it./ > > > > /Should the Review Group post comments, it will review all comments > > prior to posting and will not post comments that contain vulgar or > > abusive language; personal attacks of any kind; offensive terms > > that target specific groups; spam or comments that are clearly “off > > topic”; commercial promotions; information that promotes or opposes > > any political party, person campaigning for elected office, or any > > ballot proposition; reports of criminal or suspicious activity - if > > you have information for law enforcement, please contact your local > > police agency; unsolicited proposals, or other business ideas or > > inquiries; solicitations for contracting or commercial business; or > > any claims, demands, informal or formal complaints, or any other > > form of legal and/or administrative notices or processes./ > > > > > > > > Archives > > | > > Modify > > > > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > > > [Powered by Listbox] > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 6 03:26:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:56:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: How much do you participate in the ICANN process parminder? I would have thought you would need to actively participate in any process at all, to understand it to any significant degree. Just curious. --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 12:17, parminder wrote: > > BTW, I think people do know that ICANN needs US government's clearance (or is it, advice) to appoint its Chief Security Officer, and the current incumbent continues to be a 'sworn member' of the US government's Homeland Security Advisory Committee... > > No offence intended, but does not give me too much confidence. > > I also understand that ICANN is right now involved in various kind of issues related to securitisation of DNS and routing .... > > parminder > > On Friday 06 September 2013 11:32 AM, parminder wrote: >> Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency (NSA) planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members. >> >> Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.” >> >> “Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,” the memo says. >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all& >> This is the government to which we have entrusted the oversight of some essential infrastructural features of the Internet. >> Continuing on the subject of 'time to get real....'. >> parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Sep 6 03:29:24 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:29:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bruce Schneier: The Only Way to Restore Trust in the NSA In-Reply-To: <52293FA2.3080904@itforchange.net> References: <047e01cea9e1$8af26440$a0d72cc0$@gmail.com> <20130905223607.63bcc2c8@quill> <52293FA2.3080904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130906092924.3ab67de2@quill> Parminder wrote: > On the other hand, there are precendents of an > international system enforcing international law for all people of > the world in all countries, that allow themselves to be subject to > that international system - International criminal court of justice, > for instance. Therefore, this latter may be the more likely route to > go. Yes, and consequently it was my first idea to propose something along those lines. I didn't because I failed to see any way around the problem of how to set things up so that certain-to arise concerns can be resolved that opening up their national security institutions to an international institution (where they don't get to first do a security vetting process for every individual who gets access to their secrets) would open them up to international espionage and therefore compromise vital legitimate national security interests. > If we need a truth and reconciliation commission that Bruce Schneier > seeks in the article, it needs to be global. For the truth and reconciliation commission idea I agree. But I don't think we can get there unless serious steps of opening up in regard to violations of human rights of foreigners are taken at the national level first. > US, and those closely > allied to it - whether because of residing in certain countries, or > because of personal persuasion, should get over this thing about US > solving the world's problems, and come to terms with interacting with > the rest of the world on equal terms. I agree. But that doesn't imply that it has to be done entirely by means of an international institution. In my suggestion, the first step is one that every country is able to take unilaterally. And I think that countries will benefit economically from taking that step, and I think that that benefit would be more than sufficient to justify the costs and risks associated with taking this step. If I'm right in my appraisal of this economic aspect, won't that make it relatively easy for countries to decide to take this step? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Sep 6 03:34:22 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:34:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130906093422.5069a807@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > How much do you participate in the ICANN process parminder? I would > have thought you would need to actively participate in any process at > all, to understand it to any significant degree. A trustworthy process is one where you don't need to personally participate in order to be able to understand it well enough to be able to trust it. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 6 04:04:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:34:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <20130906093422.5069a807@quill> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> <20130906093422.5069a807@quill> Message-ID: <6B966D68-3239-4644-B4EF-3F21447B196D@hserus.net> Possibly. However, trust aside, to criticize a process with specific statements does demand active involvement in the process - in other words, a lack of informed criticism is something I can get simply by looking at the comments section of various newspapers. You don't need a civil society caucus, or policy focused NGOs, to come up with such criticism. Anything more nuanced than that - which I would ordinarily expect from a policy statement - does require active participation in and familiarity with the process. --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 13:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> How much do you participate in the ICANN process parminder? I would >> have thought you would need to actively participate in any process at >> all, to understand it to any significant degree. > > A trustworthy process is one where you don't need to personally > participate in order to be able to understand it well enough to be able > to trust it. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Sep 6 05:34:28 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:34:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <52297A81.1070808 at itforchange.net>, at 12:17:29 on Fri, 6 Sep 2013, parminder writes > >BTW, I think people do know that ICANN needs US government's clearance >(or is it, advice) to appoint its Chief Security Officer Is that in order to fulfil the conditions for the IANA contract, rather than ICANN's other operational needs? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 6 06:03:15 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:33:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5229A863.8000705@itforchange.net> On Friday 06 September 2013 03:04 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <52297A81.1070808 at itforchange.net>, at 12:17:29 on Fri, 6 > Sep 2013, parminder writes >> >> BTW, I think people do know that ICANN needs US government's >> clearance (or is it, advice) to appoint its Chief Security Officer > > Is that in order to fulfil the conditions for the IANA contract, > rather than ICANN's other operational needs? yes, that is my understanding. parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Sep 6 06:11:12 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:11:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <6B966D68-3239-4644-B4EF-3F21447B196D@hserus.net> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> <20130906093422.5069a807@quill> <6B966D68-3239-4644-B4EF-3F21447B196D@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130906121112.23b62930@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Possibly. However, trust aside, to criticize a process with specific > statements does demand active involvement in the process - in other > words, a lack of informed criticism is something I can get simply by > looking at the comments section of various newspapers. You don't > need a civil society caucus, or policy focused NGOs, to come up with > such criticism. > > Anything more nuanced than that - which I would ordinarily expect > from a policy statement - does require active participation in and > familiarity with the process. Is this line of argument an elaboration of the position “outsiders should not criticize aspects of a governance process which make it impossible for them to trust that process”? I would strongly assert that all governance processes must be designed for being trustworthy to outsiders, and that any violation of that principle goes very much against the fundamental values of democracy. I think that it's a fact of human nature that when things go wrong in a group, often only outsiders are able to see clearly what is going wrong. Greetings, Norbert > On 06-Sep-2013, at 13:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> How much do you participate in the ICANN process parminder? I would > >> have thought you would need to actively participate in any process > >> at all, to understand it to any significant degree. > > > > A trustworthy process is one where you don't need to personally > > participate in order to be able to understand it well enough to be > > able to trust it. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kstouray at gmail.com Fri Sep 6 06:19:33 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:19:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Roland, To help clear the air, here's a direct quote (including my clarifications in parentheses) from the IANA contract ( http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-01oct12-en.pdf): "The Contractor [US Department of Commerce] shall designate a Director of Security who shall be responsible for ensuring technical and physical security measures, such as personnel access controls. The Contractor shall notify and consult in advance the COR [Contracting Officer's Representative] when there are personnel changes in this position. The Director of Security shall be one of the key personnel assigned to this contract." In the above, the Contractor and COR both refer to the USDOC. For your information, I wrote a CirecleID article back last January which discussed the impact of the IANA contract on Internet governance and the multi-stakeholder model ( http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130122_much_ado_about_wcit_12_and_multi_stakeholderism/ ). Katim On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <52297A81.1070808 at itforchange.**net<52297A81.1070808 at itforchange.net>>, > at 12:17:29 on Fri, 6 Sep 2013, parminder > writes > > >> BTW, I think people do know that ICANN needs US government's clearance >> (or is it, advice) to appoint its Chief Security Officer >> > > Is that in order to fulfil the conditions for the IANA contract, rather > than ICANN's other operational needs? > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 6 06:52:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 16:22:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <20130906121112.23b62930@quill> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> <20130906093422.5069a807@quill> <6B966D68-3239-4644-B4EF-3F21447B196D@hserus.net> <20130906121112.23b62930@quill> Message-ID: If you track a process from outside and criticize it - being sufficiently informed helps. And not trusting the icann process makes a mockery of the stakeholders that do trust it, participate in it and hope to influence change from within .. which includes many people on this caucus. --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 15:41, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Possibly. However, trust aside, to criticize a process with specific >> statements does demand active involvement in the process - in other >> words, a lack of informed criticism is something I can get simply by >> looking at the comments section of various newspapers. You don't >> need a civil society caucus, or policy focused NGOs, to come up with >> such criticism. >> >> Anything more nuanced than that - which I would ordinarily expect >> from a policy statement - does require active participation in and >> familiarity with the process. > > Is this line of argument an elaboration of the position “outsiders > should not criticize aspects of a governance process which make it > impossible for them to trust that process”? > > I would strongly assert that all governance processes must be designed > for being trustworthy to outsiders, and that any violation of that > principle goes very much against the fundamental values of democracy. > > I think that it's a fact of human nature that when things go wrong in a > group, often only outsiders are able to see clearly what is going wrong. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > >> On 06-Sep-2013, at 13:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> How much do you participate in the ICANN process parminder? I would >>>> have thought you would need to actively participate in any process >>>> at all, to understand it to any significant degree. >>> >>> A trustworthy process is one where you don't need to personally >>> participate in order to be able to understand it well enough to be >>> able to trust it. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Sep 6 10:02:15 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 15:02:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 10:19:33 on Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Katim S. Touray writes >To help clear the air, here's a direct quote (including my >clarifications in parentheses) from the IANA contract ( >http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-01oct12-en.pdf): > > "The Contractor [US Department of Commerce] shall designate a > Director of Security who shall be responsible for ensuring technical > and physical security measures, such as personnel access controls.  > The Contractor shall notify and consult in advance the COR > [Contracting Officer's Representative] when there are personnel > changes in this position. The Director of Security shall be one of > the key personnel assigned to this contract." >In the above, the Contractor and COR both refer to the USDOC. With respect, that's all "old news" and I'd expect most of the usual suspects on this list to have understood that situation from way back when the original request-for-tender was issued. (If not then they haven't been paying attention). The question I was attempting to ask is whether or not ICANN has one "Director of Security IANA" who meets those well understood criteria, or maybe they could have a second (without the various baggage) Director of Security who is responsible only for the non-IANA part of their portfolio. Or perhaps there's not enough security to worry about that it requires two people. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Sep 6 10:26:03 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 07:26:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Roland, On Sep 6, 2013, at 7:02 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > The question I was attempting to ask is whether or not ICANN has one "Director of Security IANA" who meets those well understood criteria, or maybe they could have a second (without the various baggage) Director of Security who is responsible only for the non-IANA part of their portfolio. > > Or perhaps there's not enough security to worry about that it requires two people. When I was at ICANN and general manager of IANA, I performed the "Director of Security" role mentioned in the IANA functions contract. There was also a separate Security group focused on stuff like physical security, IT-related security, etc. After I left, Rod created the CSO role and hired Jeff Moss (I presume he is the "'sworn member' of the US government's Homeland Security Advisory Committee") into it, however I don't think much has changed structurally -- the IANA 'Director of Security' role is different than the ICANN Corporate CSO role. Regards, -drc -------------- 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 Fri Sep 6 10:40:12 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:40:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> <20130906093422.5069a807@quill> <6B966D68-3239-4644-B4EF-3F21447B196D@hserus.net> <20130906121112.23b62930@quill> Message-ID: At 12:52 06/09/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >And not trusting the icann process makes a mockery of the >stakeholders that do trust it, participate in it and hope to >influence change from within .. which includes many people on this caucus Dear Suresh, I am very sorry, but trusting the ICANN process is by itself a mockery. In particular of all the informed stakeholders who have suffered from it for 15 years. These informed stakeholders, as you mention it, know that the ICANN process needs change, from within, from outside or the internet being without it. If you wish - I have organized several votes of icannatlarge and IDNO - I could send you more than 2000 email addresses of people who distrustsed the ICANN process and wanted to positively influence its change from within. I have been on the DNHC, I own the atlarge.org domain name, I have been a France candidate to the ICANN BoD, then a GNSO candidate. I just looked in my mail archive searching for the word ICANN : it came back with 51173 mails over 13 years. Cheers :-) !!! jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 6 11:00:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 20:30:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> <20130906093422.5069a807@quill> <6B966D68-3239-4644-B4EF-3F21447B196D@hserus.net> <20130906121112.23b62930@quill> Message-ID: Yes thank you, I dont need to google for what you asked me to. I will maintain that change if any has to come from within, and from participating in the process. --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 20:10, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 12:52 06/09/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> And not trusting the icann process makes a mockery of the stakeholders that do trust it, participate in it and hope to influence change from within .. which includes many people on this caucus > > Dear Suresh, > > I am very sorry, but trusting the ICANN process is by itself a mockery. In particular of all the informed stakeholders who have suffered from it for 15 years. These informed stakeholders, as you mention it, know that the ICANN process needs change, from within, from outside or the internet being without it. > > If you wish - I have organized several votes of icannatlarge and IDNO - I could send you more than 2000 email addresses of people who distrustsed the ICANN process and wanted to positively influence its change from within. > > I have been on the DNHC, I own the atlarge.org domain name, I have been a France candidate to the ICANN BoD, then a GNSO candidate. I just looked in my mail archive searching for the word ICANN : it came back with 51173 mails over 13 years. > > Cheers :-) !!! > 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Sep 6 13:37:11 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:37:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <66805B0A-C399-4B00-9A82-A1785513327A@post.harvard.edu> On Sep 6, 2013, at 3:26 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > ... I would have thought you would need to actively participate in > any process at all, to understand it to any significant degree. Or, one can get caustic appraisals, from those at the very center. Has happened. With indubitable, damning evidence. There _are_ alternatives, to participation. David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Sep 6 14:45:15 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 19:45:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 07:26:03 on Fri, 6 Sep 2013, David Conrad writes >When I was at ICANN and general manager of IANA, I performed the "Director of Security" role mentioned in the IANA functions contract. There >was also a separate Security group focused on stuff like physical security, IT-related security, etc. After I left, Rod created the CSO role >and hired Jeff Moss (I presume he is the "'sworn member' of the US government's Homeland Security Advisory Committee") into it, however I don't >think much has changed structurally -- the IANA 'Director of Security' role is different than the ICANN Corporate CSO role. Very informative, thanks. But who is the IANA Director of Security today if Jeff is the ICANN one? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 6 14:59:13 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:59:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi All, On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:02 AM, parminder wrote: > Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency (NSA) planted > vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of > Standards and Technology and later by the International Organization for > Standardization, which has 163 countries as members. > > Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, > discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the > agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the > international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.” > > “Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,” the memo says. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all& > > This is the government to which we have entrusted the oversight of some > essential infrastructural features of the Internet. This is the government which has given a contract to a CS body that is the Secretariat for a policy making community. The government in question checks to see if the contract provisions are being fulfilled. They do not have oversight of "essential infrastructural features" themselves (with the ex exception of a few root servers NASA and DOD operate). > > Continuing on the subject of 'time to get real....'. in that vein, it may be a good idea to change the misleading subject line if this thread! -- 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 drc at virtualized.org Fri Sep 6 17:13:43 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:13:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sep 6, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > Very informative, thanks. But who is the IANA Director of Security today if Jeff is the ICANN one? I just asked and was informed it is Tomofumi Okubo. Regards, -drc -------------- 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 Fri Sep 6 18:46:25 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:46:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 16:26 06/09/2013, David Conrad wrote: >When I was at ICANN and general manager of IANA, I performed the >"Director of Security" role mentioned in the IANA functions >contract. There was also a separate Security group focused on stuff >like physical security, IT-related security, etc. After I left, Rod >created the CSO role and hired Jeff Moss (I presume he is the >"'sworn member' of the US government's Homeland Security Advisory >Committee") into it, however I don't think much has changed >structurally -- the IANA 'Director of Security' role is different >than the ICANN Corporate CSO role. David, as a former IANA General Manager (unless your are sworn to some secrecy), what are the technical duties that justify a US's sworn oversight of the IANA? To make the question simpler, if we were to propose a "IANA MS enhanced cooperation" that would be made secure and neutral by members (government, ICC, ITU and Civil Society organizations) running their own http://iana.cctld sites in their national language(s), with the addition of local/specialized tables and documentation, the translation of RFCs, national laws, rules, best practices, etc. what would be the resulting technical difficulties/risk for the network? jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 6 19:01:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 04:31:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <66805B0A-C399-4B00-9A82-A1785513327A@post.harvard.edu> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> <66805B0A-C399-4B00-9A82-A1785513327A@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Yes. But they have to be informed by closely tracking the process. Blanket criticism of a process, of the "all senators are thieves" variety I can get if I walk into a bar --srs (iPad) On 06-Sep-2013, at 23:07, David Allen wrote: > On Sep 6, 2013, at 3:26 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> ... I would have thought you would need to actively participate in any process at all, to understand it to any significant degree. > > Or, one can get caustic appraisals, from those at the very center. Has happened. With indubitable, damning evidence. > > There _are_ alternatives, to participation. > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kstouray at gmail.com Fri Sep 6 20:18:03 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:18:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Roland, My clarification was more to provide a context for your quote from Parminder which read: "BTW, I think people do know that ICANN needs US government's clearance (or is it, advice) to appoint its Chief Security Officer " I'm sorry I didn't directly respond to your question ("Is that in order to fulfil [sic] the conditions for the IANA contract, rather than ICANN's other operational needs?") which you asked in response to the above statement from Parminder. While my clarification might be "old news" to you, it is worth remembering that the IANA contract is binding until 2015, with the possibility of extending it to 2019. So this "old news" is worth keeping in mind for now, and in the future. Cheers! Katim On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message mail.gmail.com >, at 10:19:33 on Fri, 6 > Sep 2013, Katim S. Touray writes > > > To help clear the air, here's a direct quote (including my >> clarifications in parentheses) from the IANA contract ( >> http://www.icann.org/en/about/**agreements/iana/contract-**01oct12-en.pdf >> ): >> >> "The Contractor [US Department of Commerce] shall designate a >> Director of Security who shall be responsible for ensuring technical >> and physical security measures, such as personnel access controls. >> The Contractor shall notify and consult in advance the COR >> [Contracting Officer's Representative] when there are personnel >> changes in this position. The Director of Security shall be one of >> the key personnel assigned to this contract." >> In the above, the Contractor and COR both refer to the USDOC. >> > > With respect, that's all "old news" and I'd expect most of the usual > suspects on this list to have understood that situation from way back when > the original request-for-tender was issued. (If not then they haven't been > paying attention). > > The question I was attempting to ask is whether or not ICANN has one > "Director of Security IANA" who meets those well understood criteria, or > maybe they could have a second (without the various baggage) Director of > Security who is responsible only for the non-IANA part of their portfolio. > > Or perhaps there's not enough security to worry about that it requires two > people. > -- > Roland Perry > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Sep 6 20:41:05 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:41:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: JFC, On Sep 6, 2013, at 3:46 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > as a former IANA General Manager (unless your are sworn to some secrecy), what are the technical duties that justify a US's sworn oversight of the IANA? Not sure what 'sworn oversight' means in this context. I certainly didn't swear (my mom taught me not to). When I was IANA GM, the primary role of the 'Director of Security' was to make sure IANA operations were secure against attack, that we took reasonable steps to ensure the registries weren't compromised, act as the point of contact in case of attack (or rumors of attack), etc. My understanding of the reason DoC wanted to be informed in advance of changes in personnel is they wanted to know the person was competent to do the work as well as knowing who to call if something bad happened security-wise. I've no idea if the job requirements changed since I left. > To make the question simpler, if we were to propose a "IANA MS enhanced cooperation" that would be made secure and neutral by members (government, ICC, ITU and Civil Society organizations) running their own http://iana.cctld sites in their national language(s), with the addition of local/specialized tables and documentation, the translation of RFCs, national laws, rules, best practices, etc. what would be the resulting technical difficulties/risk for the network? I imagine the largest technical difficult would be coordination -- there is a reason (other than to feed conspiracy theorists) the IETF keeps coming up with singly rooted architectures for stuff (names, addresses, routing security, network management identifiers, etc.): coordinating a single tree is easy, coordinating a forest is really, really hard (even when the multiple trees want to coordinate, which appears to be rarely the case in the context of the 'members' you mention above). Regards, -drc -------------- 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 drc at virtualized.org Fri Sep 6 20:46:04 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:46:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7B967BE4-56F8-4C64-BC1D-B0BE0F44C556@virtualized.org> Katim, On Sep 6, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > My clarification was more to provide a context for your quote from Parminder which read: > > "BTW, I think people do know that ICANN needs US government's clearance (or is it, advice) to appoint its Chief Security Officer" I've long ago stopped reading Parminder's contributions so I missed this. As far as I know, that statement is inaccurate, even ignoring the incorrect title (assuming the role meant is the IANA Director of Security). The contractual language states that Commerce must notify and consult in advance with the COR, not that the COR grants clearance for the appointment of the IANA Director of Security. Also, a clarification: > To help clear the air, here's a direct quote (including my > clarifications in parentheses) from the IANA contract ( > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-01oct12-en.pdf): > > "The Contractor [US Department of Commerce] shall designate a > Director of Security who shall be responsible for ensuring technical > and physical security measures, such as personnel access controls. > The Contractor shall notify and consult in advance the COR > [Contracting Officer's Representative] when there are personnel > changes in this position. The Director of Security shall be one of > the key personnel assigned to this contract." > In the above, the Contractor and COR both refer to the USDOC. "Contractor" in the above means ICANN, not Dept. of Commerce. Regards, -drc -------------- 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 kstouray at gmail.com Fri Sep 6 20:58:50 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:58:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <7B967BE4-56F8-4C64-BC1D-B0BE0F44C556@virtualized.org> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> <7B967BE4-56F8-4C64-BC1D-B0BE0F44C556@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Hi Dave, Thanks for the correction of my clarification! What was going on in my head? Your input certainly helps! And to all, please accept my apologies for my bad. Katim On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 12:46 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Katim, > > On Sep 6, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > > My clarification was more to provide a context for your quote from > Parminder which read: > > "BTW, I think people do know that ICANN needs US government's clearance > (or is it, advice) to appoint its Chief Security Officer" > > > I've long ago stopped reading Parminder's contributions so I missed this. > > As far as I know, that statement is inaccurate, even ignoring the > incorrect title (assuming the role meant is the IANA Director of Security). > The contractual language states that Commerce must notify and consult in > advance with the COR, not that the COR grants clearance for the appointment > of the IANA Director of Security. > > Also, a clarification: > > To help clear the air, here's a direct quote (including my >>> clarifications in parentheses) from the IANA contract ( >>> http://www.icann.org/en/about/**agreements/iana/contract-** >>> 01oct12-en.pdf >>> ): >>> >>> "The Contractor [US Department of Commerce] shall designate a >>> Director of Security who shall be responsible for ensuring technical >>> and physical security measures, such as personnel access controls. >>> The Contractor shall notify and consult in advance the COR >>> [Contracting Officer's Representative] when there are personnel >>> changes in this position. The Director of Security shall be one of >>> the key personnel assigned to this contract." >>> In the above, the Contractor and COR both refer to the USDOC. >>> >> > "Contractor" in the above means ICANN, not Dept. of Commerce. > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Sep 6 21:20:05 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 18:20:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> <7B967BE4-56F8-4C64-BC1D-B0BE0F44C556@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <9C27779F-BEB5-4440-A957-67550F3B481E@virtualized.org> On Sep 6, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > Thanks for the correction of my clarification! What was going on in my head? It's Friday :). I knew you knew, just wanted to make sure a new round of conspiracy theories didn't start up... Regards, -drc -------------- 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Sep 6 22:28:28 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 07:58:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bruce Schneier: The Only Way to Restore Trust in the NSA In-Reply-To: <20130906092924.3ab67de2@quill> References: <047e01cea9e1$8af26440$a0d72cc0$@gmail.com> <20130905223607.63bcc2c8@quill> <52293FA2.3080904@itforchange.net> <20130906092924.3ab67de2@quill> Message-ID: On 6 September 2013 12:59, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > > On the other hand, there are precendents of an > > international system enforcing international law for all people of > > the world in all countries, that allow themselves to be subject to > > that international system - International criminal court of justice, > > for instance. Therefore, this latter may be the more likely route to > > go. > > Yes, and consequently it was my first idea to propose something along > those lines. I didn't because I failed to see any way around the > problem of how to set things up so that certain-to arise concerns can > be resolved that opening up their national security institutions to an > international institution (where they don't get to first do a security > vetting process for every individual who gets access to their secrets) > would open them up to international espionage and therefore compromise > vital legitimate national security interests. > > > If we need a truth and reconciliation commission that Bruce Schneier > > seeks in the article, it needs to be global. > > For the truth and reconciliation commission idea I agree. But I don't > think we can get there unless serious steps of opening up in regard to > violations of human rights of foreigners are taken at the national > level first. > > > US, and those closely > > allied to it - whether because of residing in certain countries, or > > because of personal persuasion, should get over this thing about US > > solving the world's problems, and come to terms with interacting with > > the rest of the world on equal terms. > > I agree. But that doesn't imply that it has to be done entirely by means > of an international institution. > > In my suggestion, the first step is one that every country is able to > take unilaterally. And I think that countries will benefit economically > from taking that step, and I think that that benefit would be more than > sufficient to justify the costs and risks associated with taking this > step. If I'm right in my appraisal of this economic aspect, won't that > make it relatively easy for countries to decide to take this step? > > Greetings, > Norbert > Interesting proposal, Norbert, though possibly difficult to implement. In India, for example, intelligence agencies do not even come under parliamentary oversight. Though other arms of the government might be more sympathetic, I'm quite sure a proposal like this would attract *a lot* of resistance. Best, Anja > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Sep 6 23:33:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 09:03:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role Message-ID: Not reading them and failing to respond to them would be a mistake. Propaganda needs to be countered lest it get taken at its face value. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "David Conrad" To: "Katim S. Touray" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] US's oversight role Date: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 6:16 AM Katim, On Sep 6, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > My clarification was more to provide a context for your quote from Parminder which read: > > "BTW, I think people do know that ICANN needs US government's clearance (or is it, advice) to appoint its Chief Security Officer" I've long ago stopped reading Parminder's contributions so I missed this. As far as I know, that statement is inaccurate, even ignoring the incorrect title (assuming the role meant is the IANA Director of Security). The contractual language states that Commerce must notify and consult in advance with the COR, not that the COR grants clearance for the appointment of the IANA Director of Security. Also, a clarification: > To help clear the air, here's a direct quote (including my > clarifications in parentheses) from the IANA contract ( > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-01oct12-en.pdf): > > "The Contractor [US Department of Commerce] shall designate a > Director of Security who shall be responsible for ensuring technical > and physical security measures, such as personnel access controls. > The Contractor shall notify and consult in advance the COR > [Contracting Officer's Representative] when there are personnel > changes in this position. The Director of Security shall be one of > the key personnel assigned to this contract." > In the above, the Contractor and COR both refer to the USDOC. "Contractor" in the above means ICANN, not Dept. of Commerce. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 7 03:46:29 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 09:46:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bruce Schneier: The Only Way to Restore Trust in the NSA In-Reply-To: References: <047e01cea9e1$8af26440$a0d72cc0$@gmail.com> <20130905223607.63bcc2c8@quill> <52293FA2.3080904@itforchange.net> <20130906092924.3ab67de2@quill> Message-ID: <20130907094629.1f553ca8@quill> Anja Kovacs wrote: > Interesting proposal, Norbert, though possibly difficult to > implement. In India, for example, intelligence agencies do not even > come under parliamentary oversight. Though other arms of the > government might be more sympathetic, I'm quite sure a proposal like > this would attract *a lot* of resistance. Yes, absolutely. The key to getting things moving forward initially will be to find a few countries where great support for this kind of idea can be achieved, while the resistance might be not as great as elsewhere -- so that the support will be stronger than the resistance. When it is then seen in other countries that the countries benefit economically which seriously work towards being as internationally trustworthy as possible, support there will also grow and resistance diminish. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 7 04:07:56 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 13:37:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] US's oversight role In-Reply-To: <9C27779F-BEB5-4440-A957-67550F3B481E@virtualized.org> References: <52296FF4.5020507@itforchange.net> <52297A81.1070808@itforchange.net> <7B967BE4-56F8-4C64-BC1D-B0BE0F44C556@virtualized.org> <9C27779F-BEB5-4440-A957-67550F3B481E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <522ADEDC.8020200@itforchange.net> On Saturday 07 September 2013 06:50 AM, David Conrad wrote: > On Sep 6, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote: >> Thanks for the correction of my clarification! What was going on in my head? > It's Friday :). I knew you knew, just wanted to make sure a new round of conspiracy theories didn't start up... When a government is putting back-doors in encryption software, in collusion with companies, and worse, writing software standards so as to leave deliberate vulnerabilities, and (mis)using the national and international standard agencies for this purpose, it is not a conspiracy theory to question the (clearly) close relationship ICANN's security establishment has with that government. It is the 'normal' duty of civil society. But this place seem to be dominated by defenders of the powerful rather than those who question them.... A pity, I would say, for any space which is supposed to be civil society... parminder > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 7 05:04:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 14:34:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 07:33 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 August 2013 03:19 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear Parminder, >> >> You will excuse me, but I do not intend to engage in a long exchange >> on this. > > Sorry Bertrand, I cant excuse you. You made a sweeping personal > accusation and I ask you to justify it with some instances. You will > have to do that. There is no escape or excusing. Ok, let me give you > another way. You can do this off-list to me with cocos cc-ed, or > include a wider group of all earlier co cos. But you cant get away > with making personal characterisations on the list and then not > justifying, what in default will be, your most objectionable conduct. Bertrand It is almost a month now and you have'nt reverted with the basis of making the personal allegation you made - even one instance, for you to justify your allegation, and I quote " I resent (referring to me) your becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. " and at another place "yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc".... As I said, this is unacceptable. You cant do what you wish on this list, and that goes for some others here as well... Although you havent been able to offer one example of an inappropriate comment by me, within 3 weeks before our above exchange at least two other people made such comments about me, Anriette (that I have a tendency to twist words, in an attempt to score political points) and Avri (that people dont enter into discussion with me with a fear of starting a flame war). And this follows numerous similar barbs for a long long period. So this is my short response to all three of you, that while my normal way is to do just enough so that you feel a bit of pinch to think a little before you do such a thing again, I will let it go this time. But not again. So consider yourself forewarned. It is utterly tasteless for me to be doing interactions of this kind with people like you. But I wont just run away from here becuase so many of you want me to do so. Yes, Daniel Pimienta withdrew, and I assure many others did like him, as one coping strategy for what has come of this group, that was initially set up during the WSIS in a framework of global WSIS civil society with lofty ideals of working for marginalised and left-outs of the world. I have chosen a different path. I will stay and fight. And I would not allow you to write a one-sided compromised history of IG civil society, and of this group. No, this group is not dead because of any particular bad behaviour, it is in this shape because some of us stood up to blatant attempts by the likes of you to turn this place into something that would facilitate, in Daniel's words ,"allowing multistakeholderism to perform smoothly" and which trend may "transform us (organized civil society) in the unwilling accomplices of many bad actions performed in our field". Every attempt has been made to browbeat us to shut up - one of the most powerful device being, making frequent allegations of poor behaviour... Bertrand, down here in the world of activism we know these tactics only too well to be afraid of them. But yes, the chilling effect does have some traction... Effective conditions have been created here, on this list, that, except for a very few people, the cost of speaking a word against the US government, big business companies, ICANN etc is considered too high. This is what your kind have done to the list/ group. No, it is not that you dont like it because of 'how' I react to your emails, but becuase 'of ''what' I react with to your formulations like multistakeholder funding (which I really see only as adding corporate funding to core policy spaces which is otherwise unmentionable in democratic practice) and ideas like of self-organising issue-based governance systems, which is simply often no governance, other than the kind that most powerful actors with the most resources of various kinds can summon at will (London to Budapest to Seoul Cyber space conferences ??) . Such systems work against the interests of the most marginalised who are incapable of organising just-in-time governance mechanisms..... Such kinds as I provided are valid criticisms coming from long established democractic theory. And I have no intention to run away and make this space safe for practising anti-democratic kind of MSism. This is what you hate - and on a simple self-reflection you are smart enough to realize that. Whatever, but dont transgress the limits again. I know being in powerful places can rub off some haughtiness on almost anyone, even if unthinkingly, but I would think that you are a careful and long-term operator, so hope that you will take the cue. It is fortunate that you chose to breach what I thought was otherwise mutually respectful relationship we have had since WSIS days. I would have let is pass, but there is just too much of politics hidden below it, and while I can leave aside personal issues, I dont shrink from my political duties. And hence these emails. I do really feel bad that I had to say things here that , I know, would hurt you. I would have really hoped youd be careful enough. Regret-fully, and still with regards, parminder > >> I have said what I felt. > > :) . I can assure you Bertrand, if it comes to that, and I have to say > what I myself feel about some people who have been going around > expressing their feelings openly, it will be fully as I really feel. > The normal rule of public behaviour, especially on elists like this, > however, is that even if you get some negative feelings about a person > as such, beyond just his/ her arguments, dont bring it out publicly. > You know what happens; if one consistently doesnt like the political > view point of another, it can begin to tend towards personal dislike > as well. Just a psychological fact. Not a good thing but that is how > often it is. But one has to control oneself in public and stick to > discussing issues rather than people. You (and some others) have > broken that rule, and you must justify it. You can disagree as > violently with a viewpoint as you want, but dont target the person. > > > >> I think it is time to move forward and not waste people's time that >> could be devoted to something more useful. One can survive with egos >> bruised. > > I can survive with bruised ego, but not with people having exercised > power over me... I have a gut reaction against bowing to power. Maybe > an activist's normal training. /*For me this is a political act.*/ > Especially on this political field of this elist. The manner in which > some members here think that they have superior rights than others to > pass judgements, and others should then simply move on....... It cant > be accepted. It wont be. > > parminder > > >> It's a proof of moral strength and willingness to work for the common >> good. >> >> Your response below however seems to imply you have little desire to >> help calm things down, let alone recognize when your attitude may >> hurt others. If you are looking for a confrontation, I regret it but >> will not be the sparring partner you are looking for. Flame wars are >> not my cup of tea. Besides, I am now on well deserved holidays and >> intend to enjoy them. >> >> We will have other opportunities to address this in person in the >> coming months, if the grudge persists after a few weeks. >> >> For now, I wish you and the list a very happy month of August and a >> good preparation of what awaits us in September. >> >> Best as always >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:49 AM, parminder > > wrote: >> >> Bertrand, >> >> Pl see inline. >> >> On Friday 09 August 2013 06:46 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now >>> for exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of >>> the people who were at the origin of the creation of this very >>> list and caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely >>> saddened by the way it is currently evolving and indeed becoming >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent >>> exchange. You wrote: "/Ad hominem is when one says something >>> like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score >>> political points/"". >>> >>> I would like to differ. "/You tend to twist people's words in >>> order to score political points/" is NOT an ad hominem attack >>> (see Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken >>> a specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about >>> your behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary >>> fairness in representing somebody else's position. >>> >>> To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for >>> instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they >>> (really) say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says >>> A and another person says: "this person said B and therefore >>> this person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting >>> people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: >>> Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she >>> supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. >>> >>> To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad >>> hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to >>> respond to it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would >>> be more credible if you did not yourself frequently attribute >>> ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of >>> their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of >>> actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of >>> civil society purity, etc... >>> >>> This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list >>> and actually weakening its influence in the global debate. >>> >>> I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree >>> with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your >>> becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. >> >> >> I have many things to say about your email, but for the present, >> would you be so good as to provide instances to substantiate your >> above sweeping statement(s). You have made some serious >> allegations against a civil society colleague with whom you have >> worked for around 8 years now. I sincerely hope you would not >> shrink from standing your ground on this, and not slip away. >> >> >> >>> There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. >> >> Quite true. In fact I am considering availing some such moments >> presently. Although this current 'controversy' really arose from >> an incident of calling a spade a spade, however mildly - a spade >> that laid in full view of the list members, in the text of emails >> exchanged on the list. >> >> regards >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude >>> to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. >>> >>> This is below you. You have more to contribute. >>> >>> Respectfully still.Bertrand >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >>> >>> ad hominem comment >>> >>> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing >>> asbestos - >>> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would >>> just go away and we could all get back to rational calm >>> conversations) >>> >>> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because >>> someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >>> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >>> >>> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on >>> this list. >>> >>> >>> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what >>> is ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs >>> when, in a discussion, someone attacks a person's character >>> or personal traits, instead of, and with a view to >>> undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious >>> distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a >>> discussion, personal attacks are almost always made - >>> certainly in conditions like of this list, where people >>> otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no >>> particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine >>> that person's argument. >>> >>> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between >>> just an allegation and an ad hominem attack. >>> >>> Saying something like , to stick to present case of >>> Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an >>> allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite >>> serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, >>> whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) >>> >>> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to >>> twist people's words in order to score political points". >>> That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and >>> personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to distract >>> from the argument made - which in this case what that >>> Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the >>> Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me for >>> a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing >>> personal here. >>> >>> >>> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible >>> bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, >>> X makes a lot of sense. >>> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with >>> what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that >>> if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat >>> up for it. >>> >>> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, >>> but X is just so mean. >>> >>> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed >>> IGC participants) >>> >>> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are >>> among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the >>> positions you represent. >>> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so >>> on the list for fear of starting a flame war. >>> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait >>> for the storm to pass. >>> >>> >>> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character >>> is made directly or rather more subtly. Your above >>> statements themselves tends towards such an ad hominem >>> attack, and you have very often said such things about me. >>> And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than >>> anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to >>> disprove my claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. >>> Please point out the precise language in the current >>> exchange over the last few days that you find problematic in >>> my emails, that is something other than a critique of >>> someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of >>> the nature of a personal attack. Please just give even one >>> example. You may even go back further to earlier emails, >>> becuase from the above it appears you are a very good record >>> keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not >>> argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even >>> respond, I just want it to out for everyone to see, rather >>> that your be subject to your insinuations. >>> >>> >>> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >>> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >>> >>> >>> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC >>> irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about. >>> >>> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content >>> is the outrageousness of a few individuals. >>> >>> >>> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views >>> - not people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the >>> fact is that there enough degree of difference in views on >>> this list that at times one side and at other times the >>> other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never >>> against any person as such, unlike what I am almost >>> regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an >>> instance to prove my statement wrong. As for personal >>> attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your >>> reference above of not responding to me with the fear of >>> starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat >>> lighter one, given the normal standards. >>> >>> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the >>> role and positions of a good part of civil society involved >>> in IG space - often dominant in its expression - and its >>> support for certain power structures, which I do often >>> voice, which I understand may not go well with some people. >>> But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and >>> never directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This >>> is the view I have - and I consider it very important in the >>> current global circumstances - and I cannot desist from >>> offering when the occasion so demands.) >>> >>> >>> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts >>> of many. >>> >>> >>> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to >>> examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic >>> question! >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> please stop >>> >>> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but >>> sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring >>> great relief. >>> I have heard others say similar things. >>> >>> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________ >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle >>> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International >>> Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net >>> ) >>> Member, ICANN Board of Directors >>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" >>> Antoine de Saint Exupéry >>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic >> Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net >> ) >> Member, ICANN Board of Directors >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Sep 7 05:33:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 15:03:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3A98B0A2-4B66-43C7-B540-7764FD5A7877@hserus.net> Parminder, my late grandmother used to say that a person with jaundice thinks the whole world is colored yellow. Your statement that "every attempt has been made to browbeat us to shut up" reminded me of what she used to say - and I thank you for that, it has been about a decade since she passed on. --srs (iPad) On 07-Sep-2013, at 14:34, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 August 2013 07:33 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 03:19 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> You will excuse me, but I do not intend to engage in a long exchange on this. >> >> Sorry Bertrand, I cant excuse you. You made a sweeping personal accusation and I ask you to justify it with some instances. You will have to do that. There is no escape or excusing. Ok, let me give you another way. You can do this off-list to me with cocos cc-ed, or include a wider group of all earlier co cos. But you cant get away with making personal characterisations on the list and then not justifying, what in default will be, your most objectionable conduct. > > Bertrand > > It is almost a month now and you have'nt reverted with the basis of making the personal allegation you made - even one instance, for you to justify your allegation, and I quote " I resent (referring to me) your becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. " and at another place > > "yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc".... > > As I said, this is unacceptable. You cant do what you wish on this list, and that goes for some others here as well... Although you havent been able to offer one example of an inappropriate comment by me, within 3 weeks before our above exchange at least two other people made such comments about me, Anriette (that I have a tendency to twist words, in an attempt to score political points) and Avri (that people dont enter into discussion with me with a fear of starting a flame war). And this follows numerous similar barbs for a long long period. So this is my short response to all three of you, that while my normal way is to do just enough so that you feel a bit of pinch to think a little before you do such a thing again, I will let it go this time. But not again. So consider yourself forewarned. > > It is utterly tasteless for me to be doing interactions of this kind with people like you. But I wont just run away from here becuase so many of you want me to do so. Yes, Daniel Pimienta withdrew, and I assure many others did like him, as one coping strategy for what has come of this group, that was initially set up during the WSIS in a framework of global WSIS civil society with lofty ideals of working for marginalised and left-outs of the world. I have chosen a different path. I will stay and fight. And I would not allow you to write a one-sided compromised history of IG civil society, and of this group. > > No, this group is not dead because of any particular bad behaviour, it is in this shape because some of us stood up to blatant attempts by the likes of you to turn this place into something that would facilitate, in Daniel's words ,"allowing multistakeholderism to perform smoothly" and which trend may "transform us (organized civil society) in the unwilling accomplices of many bad actions performed in our field". > > Every attempt has been made to browbeat us to shut up - one of the most powerful device being, making frequent allegations of poor behaviour... Bertrand, down here in the world of activism we know these tactics only too well to be afraid of them. But yes, the chilling effect does have some traction... Effective conditions have been created here, on this list, that, except for a very few people, the cost of speaking a word against the US government, big business companies, ICANN etc is considered too high. This is what your kind have done to the list/ group. > > No, it is not that you dont like it because of 'how' I react to your emails, but becuase 'of ''what' I react with to your formulations like multistakeholder funding (which I really see only as adding corporate funding to core policy spaces which is otherwise unmentionable in democratic practice) and ideas like of self-organising issue-based governance systems, which is simply often no governance, other than the kind that most powerful actors with the most resources of various kinds can summon at will (London to Budapest to Seoul Cyber space conferences ??) . Such systems work against the interests of the most marginalised who are incapable of organising just-in-time governance mechanisms..... Such kinds as I provided are valid criticisms coming from long established democractic theory. And I have no intention to run away and make this space safe for practising anti-democratic kind of MSism. This is what you hate - and on a simple self-reflection you are smart enough to realize that. > > Whatever, but dont transgress the limits again. I know being in powerful places can rub off some haughtiness on almost anyone, even if unthinkingly, but I would think that you are a careful and long-term operator, so hope that you will take the cue. > > It is fortunate that you chose to breach what I thought was otherwise mutually respectful relationship we have had since WSIS days. I would have let is pass, but there is just too much of politics hidden below it, and while I can leave aside personal issues, I dont shrink from my political duties. And hence these emails. I do really feel bad that I had to say things here that , I know, would hurt you. I would have really hoped youd be careful enough. > > Regret-fully, and still with regards, > > parminder > > > >> >>> I have said what I felt. >> >> :) . I can assure you Bertrand, if it comes to that, and I have to say what I myself feel about some people who have been going around expressing their feelings openly, it will be fully as I really feel. The normal rule of public behaviour, especially on elists like this, however, is that even if you get some negative feelings about a person as such, beyond just his/ her arguments, dont bring it out publicly. You know what happens; if one consistently doesnt like the political view point of another, it can begin to tend towards personal dislike as well. Just a psychological fact. Not a good thing but that is how often it is. But one has to control oneself in public and stick to discussing issues rather than people. You (and some others) have broken that rule, and you must justify it. You can disagree as violently with a viewpoint as you want, but dont target the person. >> >> >> >>> I think it is time to move forward and not waste people's time that could be devoted to something more useful. One can survive with egos bruised. >> >> I can survive with bruised ego, but not with people having exercised power over me... I have a gut reaction against bowing to power. Maybe an activist's normal training. For me this is a political act. Especially on this political field of this elist. The manner in which some members here think that they have superior rights than others to pass judgements, and others should then simply move on....... It cant be accepted. It wont be. >> >> parminder >> >> >>> It's a proof of moral strength and willingness to work for the common good. >>> >>> Your response below however seems to imply you have little desire to help calm things down, let alone recognize when your attitude may hurt others. If you are looking for a confrontation, I regret it but will not be the sparring partner you are looking for. Flame wars are not my cup of tea. Besides, I am now on well deserved holidays and intend to enjoy them. >>> >>> We will have other opportunities to address this in person in the coming months, if the grudge persists after a few weeks. >>> >>> For now, I wish you and the list a very happy month of August and a good preparation of what awaits us in September. >>> >>> Best as always >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:49 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> Bertrand, >>>> >>>> Pl see inline. >>>> >>>> On Friday 09 August 2013 06:46 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>>>> Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You wrote: "Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points"". >>>>> >>>>> I would like to differ. "You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's position. >>>>> >>>>> To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. >>>>> >>>>> To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc... >>>>> >>>>> This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and actually weakening its influence in the global debate. >>>>> >>>>> I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. >>>> >>>> >>>> I have many things to say about your email, but for the present, would you be so good as to provide instances to substantiate your above sweeping statement(s). You have made some serious allegations against a civil society colleague with whom you have worked for around 8 years now. I sincerely hope you would not shrink from standing your ground on this, and not slip away. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. >>>> >>>> Quite true. In fact I am considering availing some such moments presently. Although this current 'controversy' really arose from an incident of calling a spade a spade, however mildly - a spade that laid in full view of the list members, in the text of emails exchanged on the list. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. >>>>> >>>>> This is below you. You have more to contribute. >>>>> >>>>> Respectfully still. Bertrand >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ad hominem comment >>>>>>> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - >>>>>>> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >>>>>>> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an allegation and an ad hominem attack. >>>>>> >>>>>> Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) >>>>>> >>>>>> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing personal here. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. >>>>>>> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so mean. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. >>>>>>> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for fear of starting a flame war. >>>>>>> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your insinuations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >>>>>>> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about. >>>>>> >>>>>>> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the outrageousness of a few individuals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal standards. >>>>>> >>>>>> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic question! >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> please stop >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief. >>>>>>> I have heard others say similar things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ____________________ >>>>> Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>>> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) >>>>> Member, ICANN Board of Directors >>>>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>>>> >>>>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >>>>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________ >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle >>> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) >>> Member, ICANN Board of Directors >>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Sat Sep 7 05:54:13 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 11:54:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Bertrand offered to discuss this with you offline at one of the coming occasions: "We will have other opportunities to address this in person in the coming months, if the grudge persists after a few weeks. " Rather than drawing the whole list into this argument, I suggest you take him up on his offer. He should be back from vacation now. Best Peter H. Hellmonds On 07.09.2013, at 11:04, parminder wrote: Bertrand It is almost a month now and you have'nt reverted [...] ---- The rest of the thread clipped on purpose. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 7 06:01:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:31:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <522AF96C.2020305@itforchange.net> On Saturday 07 September 2013 03:24 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Parminder, > > Bertrand offered to discuss this with you offline at one of the coming occasions: > > "We will have other opportunities to address this in person in the coming months, if the grudge persists after a few weeks." > > Rather than drawing the whole list into this argument, I suggest you take him up on his offer. He should be back from vacation now. Peter If you would have read my email you'd see that I consider this as much a matter to place on this list as Bertrand thought it originally with regard to his email. So maybe you should have told Bertrand to write such stuff offline. As for the specific text you quoted, I hate patronizing even more than direct accusations, especially when patronizing is done 'after the act'.... parminder > > Best > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > > On 07.09.2013, at 11:04, parminder wrote: > > > Bertrand > > It is almost a month now and you have'nt reverted [...] > > ---- > > The rest of the thread clipped on purpose. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 7 08:08:24 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 14:08:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] [IP] Another example of private business out of control Message-ID: By Andrew O'Hehir Big Pharma’s African genocide A devastating new film “Fire in the Blood” explores the lies, greed and indifference that killed millions in Africa http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/pick_of_the_week_big_pharmas_african_genocide/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 Not to miss. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 7 12:16:02 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 04:16:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Mapping IGC Member Activities] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <522AF96C.2020305@itforchange.net> References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> <522AF96C.2020305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <884D754D-B1A8-4FC0-9F80-C07104638D7C@gmail.com> Dear All, Apologies for the delayed response, was out whole day at the beach today as I was busy with birthday celebrations and offline the entire time. I have had a long day and night and am emailing at 4am Fiji time and am going to bed soon so advanced apologies if my thoughts are a bit fragmented. Firstly, welcome to all the new subscribers to the IGC. By now civil society (reference is made to those on this list) should be open to understand that there are strong differing views on the degree of control, management of certain aspects of internet governance particularly when it comes to oversight of critical internet resources. (I would like to suggest that we organise a debate (friendly one) either as a webinar or a pre- event as a special feature on this topic that could be done in Bali. This will give a chance to hear the different views. The challenge will be in framing the topic) This aspect of internet governance is no doubt an extremely controversial aspect of discussions and there will always be diverse views on this and people can feel very strongly about a point of view and it is their right to. I personally have come to accept that you will always have polarized views and it would be mad to even try to attempt to get people to concede on points that they will never concede but it is also okay to agree to disagree. There is far too much at stake in the global mandate and within each country's front to confine ourselves to a corner discussing something that is "unfixable". We should focus on things within our reach that we can address and suggest solutions, share lessons, suggest solutions. Last year we were faced with all kinds of perceived and actual threats to online freedoms from SOPA, PIPA to abuse of the exceptions to Article 19 of the ICCPR. With competing markets, shortage of resources, economic meltdowns, the volatility of the Dow Jones, global food, water and energy crises, states have to deal with all kinds of volatility from civil war as we are seeing in countries like Mali. Droughts that have been hitting the earth for the last decade has led to global wheat shortages, causing rising wheat prices, bread shortage causing civil strife etc. In the midst of this volatile craziness, where there are multiple issues to be grappled with, civil society has to make its voice known as far as the advocacy of an open and free internet. It is one thing to agree to things globally but the real test is in the backyard of ordinary nation states and territories. As it is there is already so much noise (challenges, competing priorities, political, socio economic issues) have to address that issues that we as a global community identify as critical or threats to an open and free internet can easily be laid on the backburner. Recently, we heard from our friends in Pakistan on what they are doing in their countries to raise awareness. Perhaps it could be useful to hear what civil society members are doing in their respective countries whether in Universities, or within their organisations or within their countries governments to advocate for an open and free internet. We could map and list this on the etherpad and it could prove useful for those wishing to share resources and experiences. What are your thoughts? My view is that if we want to impact the global debate, we should simultaneously do it in- country and externally as well. I am also interested in what has happened with the courts in New Delhi in relation to the censorship (facebook etc) that was discussed on the list. How are our friends (civil society) in Syria doing? I met someone from Iran (former Minister ICT and now civil society rep who was persecuted by the new government and fled to the US for refuge) on the IGC list in DC last year where he had told me that in Iran was deliberately slowing access so that the Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt would not happen in Iran. It would be great to hear also from our Egyptian friends who could advise us whether their new constitution still gives power to the Government to order to stop access like they did during the revolution in Egypt and whether judicial review is now allowed or constitutional redress because as I understand this was limited under the old constitution. When the Telcos and ISPs stopped access in Egypt, they came under fire from the international community but their unique challenge then was they were operating in a context where they could not question the orders in the courts due to the way their constitution was crafted. Not too long ago we were discussing Ethiopia and how the Network operators were blocking VOIP as it was robbing their call revenue. We had interesting dialogue about the challenges in their context. In my own country, Fiji, I have been working on creating bridges between civil society, private sector and the state when it comes to internet governance. Currently, I am in the process of drafting Fiji's cyber security strategy, policy and now cyber crime law. This has been challenging in a country that has a history of being riddled with challenges to the rule of law and coup d' etats. I have found discussions during the consultations to be enlightening, invigorating and honest. At the same time it allows people to hear other parties concerns when it comes to things like national security versus individual liberties and not abusing the exceptions etc. The diversity of all these contexts clearly show that what applies in one country cannot be true for all as there all kinds of diverse contexts. Yet it is in the face of this very same diversity that we grapple not only with national issues but global ones as well. Our strength is when we are able to find resources in the midst of the diversity and make diversity work for us. There are so many issues within Internet Governance to deal with and these can be categorized under Administrative (discussions on management, bodies, enhanced cooperation etc), to substantive policy issues (Whois accuracy, Privacy, civil liberties, IPv6, redelegation of ccTLDs, gTLDs, IDNs, standards, W3C and thousands more) that demand civil society attention and input. At the end of the day, it is important that we remember that there are many battles but we should pick which one is worth our corporate effort. How do we wish to focus and synergise our advocacy. I would suggest, let's start with each sharing what they are doing within their own countries in terms of advocacy of our IGC mandate as per the Charter. Kind Regards, Sala (co-coordinator in search of candidates who will stand in the elections) P.S Parminder and Bertrand, I would suggest taking the discussions offline and am confident that you can sort your electronic conflict of language and semantics offline. Best wishes! If you still have trouble, please contact us (coordinators only) offlist and we will try to help to resolve it. Sent from my iPad On Sep 7, 2013, at 10:01 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 07 September 2013 03:24 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> Bertrand offered to discuss this with you offline at one of the coming occasions: >> >> "We will have other opportunities to address this in person in the coming months, if the grudge persists after a few weeks." >> >> Rather than drawing the whole list into this argument, I suggest you take him up on his offer. He should be back from vacation now. > > Peter > > If you would have read my email you'd see that I consider this as much a matter to place on this list as Bertrand thought it originally with regard to his email. So maybe you should have told Bertrand to write such stuff offline. > > As for the specific text you quoted, I hate patronizing even more than direct accusations, especially when patronizing is done 'after the act'.... > > parminder >> >> Best >> >> Peter H. Hellmonds >> >> >> On 07.09.2013, at 11:04, parminder wrote: >> >> >> Bertrand >> >> It is almost a month now and you have'nt reverted [...] >> >> ---- >> >> The rest of the thread clipped on purpose. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sep 7 12:55:54 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 04:55:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] Selection of Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) References: Message-ID: <9C2F5BA2-732C-43B9-A036-E95FEE891A00@gmail.com> Dear All, Multilingualism is a recognised human right where countries should be free to communicate in their preferred language(s). As far as the internet is concerned, IDNs are a major component of bridging the gap and creating "Access" for communities to engage and communicate freely on the Internet. This also has its share of conflicts and concerns that is both technical and political. A critical milestone is the selection of the Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone LGR and the announcement is copied below for those of you interested. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: ICANN At-Large Staff > Date: September 7, 2013, 4:59:38 AM GMT+12:00 > To: "alac-announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org" > Subject: [ALAC-Announce] FW: ICANN News Alert -- Selection of Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) > > > > [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg] > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06sep13-en.htm > > ________________________________ > Selection of Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) > > 6 September 2013 > > ICANN is pleased to announce that the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Top Level Domain (TLD) Program has completed the selection of the Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR). We received many applications from well-qualified individuals and we thank all the applicants for their interest in the IDN Variant TLD Program. The Integration Panel is a vital component in the implementation of the Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels [PDF, 1.39 MB] (the Procedure), and its success depends on having Integration Panel members with the right skills to perform the substantive work. > > The Procedure defines a two-pass process for the creation of IDN label generation rules (LGR) for the root zone. These rules are used to determine sets of potential "variants" of a given label that may be afforded specific treatment in the various root zone processes. > > ICANN published the Call for Subject Matter Experts for IDN Root Zone LGR Integration Panel and Advisors to All Panels on 6 June 2013. In response, ICANN received 22 eligible submissions and utilized the following selection process: > > 1. ICANN reviewed the candidates' submissions against the predefined criteria. The selection criteria were shared with the candidates and candidates were given the opportunity to provide any additional information in support of their candidature: > * The selection criteria for members of the Integration Panel included at least one area of primary expertise in Unicode, Linguistics and Writing Systems, Domain Name System (DNS) and IDNA. > * The selection process also took into account secondary experience the candidates had in those same areas of expertise. > * In addition, the selection criteria required demonstrable ability and experience to perform systematic and detailed analysis of large data sets and to produce accurate and comprehensive results, have prior work experience, and demonstrated ability to advocate positions and build group consensus. > 2. Each selection criterion was assigned a score. The evaluation team ranked each candidate's submission in relation to the selection criteria. The process allowed the evaluation team to identify the candidates who best satisfied the selection criteria. > 3. Based on the scores for each of the candidates, the evaluation team arrived at a list of the most suitable candidates. For each area of expertise, the evaluation team reviewed the top candidates and made the final selection based on the aggregate expertise of the panel to ensure that all areas had appropriate representation. > > Selected panel members are listed below: > > * Marc Blanchet > * Asmus Freytag > * Michel Suignard > * Nicholas Ostler > * Wil Tan > > Integration Panel members are expected to serve an initial term through June 2014. Responsibilities of the Integration Panel members are stated in the Procedure and the call for subject matter experts. The decisions by the integration Panel are required to be unanimous. > > Expert advisors are available to the Integration Panel to aid its deliberations. These advisors aid the Integration Panel by lending their subject matter expertise, based on specific requests from the Panel. Using the same selection criteria as used for Panel members, the following advisor has been selected: > > * Michael Everson > > The selected Advisor will serve an initial term through June 2014. Additional advisors may be added at a later time as requested by the Panel and as specified in the Procedure. > > The Integration Panel will undertake the work through periodic conference calls and face-to-face meetings. The first face-to-face meeting is planned for early October 2013. Initial work includes preparing the maximal set of code points and default whole label variant evaluation rules for the root zone. This will serve as a starting point for the community Generation Panels, the second part in the two-pass process. > > For more information on the IDN Variant TLD Program, please visit http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds. > > > > This message was sent to matt.ashtiani at icann.org from: > > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > > Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] > > > Manage Your Subscription > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Sep 7 17:18:59 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 17:18:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:04 AM, parminder wrote: > SNIP > > As I said, this is unacceptable. You cant do what you wish on this list, and > that goes for some others here as well... Although you havent been able to > offer one example of an inappropriate comment by me, within 3 weeks before > our above exchange at least two other people made such comments about me, > Anriette (that I have a tendency to twist words, in an attempt to score > political points) and Avri (that people dont enter into discussion with me > with a fear of starting a flame war). And this follows numerous similar > barbs for a long long period. So 3 globally respected senior CS folk, heavily involved in IG since the early days of WSIS give you feedback, and your takeaway is .....??? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Sep 7 18:38:51 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:38:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Tim, Are those people to be respected? Or are they just brow beating the rest of CS in support of an undemocratic MSism that works in the service of business and the United States, not to mention ICANN? The real question is, are these people willing or unwilling accomplices? I think they should be thankful they they are being let off the hook this time. And they better watch out in the future, or else! avri On 7 Sep 2013, at 17:18, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:04 AM, parminder wrote: >> > > SNIP > >> >> As I said, this is unacceptable. You cant do what you wish on this list, and >> that goes for some others here as well... Although you havent been able to >> offer one example of an inappropriate comment by me, within 3 weeks before >> our above exchange at least two other people made such comments about me, >> Anriette (that I have a tendency to twist words, in an attempt to score >> political points) and Avri (that people dont enter into discussion with me >> with a fear of starting a flame war). And this follows numerous similar >> barbs for a long long period. > > So 3 globally respected senior CS folk, heavily involved in IG since > the early days of WSIS give you feedback, and your takeaway is > .....??? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Sep 8 05:46:33 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:46:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8BF9DACD-3E8A-40AC-834B-653060EECBEB@gmail.com> Dear McTim, This thread is now considered closed as we are dealing with this offlist. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Sep 8, 2013, at 9:18 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:04 AM, parminder wrote: > > SNIP > >> >> As I said, this is unacceptable. You cant do what you wish on this list, and >> that goes for some others here as well... Although you havent been able to >> offer one example of an inappropriate comment by me, within 3 weeks before >> our above exchange at least two other people made such comments about me, >> Anriette (that I have a tendency to twist words, in an attempt to score >> political points) and Avri (that people dont enter into discussion with me >> with a fear of starting a flame war). And this follows numerous similar >> barbs for a long long period. > > So 3 globally respected senior CS folk, heavily involved in IG since > the early days of WSIS give you feedback, and your takeaway is > .....??? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Sep 8 11:04:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 17:04:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Mapping IGC Member Activities In-Reply-To: <884D754D-B1A8-4FC0-9F80-C07104638D7C@gmail.com> References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> <522AF96C.2020305@itforchange.net> <884D754D-B1A8-4FC0-9F80-C07104638D7C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130908170448.001d56b1@quill> Sala wrote: > As it is there is already so much noise (challenges, competing > priorities, political, socio economic issues) have to address that > issues that we as a global community identify as critical or threats > to an open and free internet can easily be laid on the backburner. > > Recently, we heard from our friends in Pakistan on what they are > doing in their countries to raise awareness. Perhaps it could be > useful to hear what civil society members are doing in their > respective countries whether in Universities, or within their > organisations or within their countries governments to advocate for > an open and free internet. We could map and list this on the etherpad > and it could prove useful for those wishing to share resources and > experiences. What are your thoughts? A good idea, but I'm thinking that in order for this to work out, at least someone would have to make a personal commitment to work on this mapping exercise in a sustained manner... Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 9 00:57:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:27:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <522D5541.6070600@itforchange.net> On Friday 30 August 2013 01:30 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.) Adam We at IT for Change firmly believe that the legitimacy of civil society depends on the representative that it brings to the table. A position developed through wide consultaitons and drawing wide support, especially from organisations that have clear demonstrated links with marginalised groups, should indeed be seen with that 'greater weight' it carries. What you disparagingly call as 'shopping around' is what we in advocacy call as consultation, networking and constituency building. The proposed joint statement was developed over a long period, with intensive consultations and support building, for instance see the joint statement by more 60 organisations to the May 2012 CSTD consultations on EC, which statement is explicitly quoted in the present one, and the proposed position on new mechanisms built from it. This earlier statement, and IT for Change's earlier work, statements, network of supporters etc were all listed in detail in the nomination form submitted to the civil society nomination process for the WGEC membership and the CSTD chair, on the basis of which I understand I was selected to be a part of the WG on enhanced cooperation. Everything proposed in the new statement has often been discussed (at least attempted to be discussed) on the IGC list... Even after the questionnaire was issued, I have tried to trigger discussion on the EC issue on this list and other CS lists... I fully participated in the BestBits sub list that did some degree of discussion on this subject - proposing, discussing, taking inputs on and responding to precisely the kind of proposals that find place in the final statement . These proposals were discussed widely in the last few weeks, and changed considerably owing to inputs from several people, including those on this list. I have repeatedly written on many people to provide inputs/ comments even if, for whatever reason, they are unable to support the basic positions in this statement. So, no Adam, this is not 'shopping around'. This is what we do in civil society to make connections, and gather legitimacy. We do not believe that just anyone who can get travel money and is able to ingratiate oneself with those in high places is a legitimate civil society rep at policy bodies like the WGEC. Any civil society representative at such bodies should be able to demonsrate her/ his linkages to various constituencies, most of all of marginalised groups, and constantly renew these linkages, and feed off them. That is what we are doing. My colleague Anita said at Paris WSIS forum closing session, "Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people." We take this principle rather seriously.... Unfortunately, in the IG space a lot of people have begun to believe that if they have good relations with higher up in what may be called as the 'multistakeholder space' and can keep getting support and good words from the business sector, technical community, and well, developed country gov guys, you have made it. No, that does not make one civil society. One needs to to connect, and connect continuously, to people 'down there'... (BTW, this is the list of 43 organisations and many more individuals that have supported the position prepared by IT for Change as an input to the WG on Enhanced cooperation.... This position still remains open for discussion, and we are taking inputs for it. ) This said, civil society members who do enter committees and working groups etc know pretty well their responsibilities as members of such official groups, and so do I. I have taken note of your, Avir's and Bill's comments. I have responded to most of them above. As to Bill's proposal that I excuse myself when other civil society proposals are being discussed, I dont consider it appropriate. All WG members will discuss all of the proposals, being full cognizant of their roles as WG members. Also, almost all WG members would have submitted their own proposals. The two activities are not contradictory, or exclusive. parminder > > Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed opinions I hope. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. >> >> My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the >> WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are >> the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think >> the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help >> convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to >> respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. >> >> Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related >> to from this survey, and this is the position of several other >> participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the >> questionnaire. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not know Adam's reasons. >>> >>> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >>> >>> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. >>> >>> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. >>> >>> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >>>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>>> you get this from, Adam? >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 9 01:14:19 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:44:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <522D592B.5040709@itforchange.net> On Friday 30 August 2013 01:30 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.) > > Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed opinions I hope. Yes, Adam, people are allowed to have and give their opinion. Civil society should especially give its opinion regularly on those who exercise power. And, well, to some extent, a civil society member of the WG on enhanced cooperation does exercise some power. I have therefore responded to the issues that you, Avri and Bill raised. And I am happy for a further discussion on these issues. Meanwhile, I must say that similarly other people here - including you - should also have the stomach for critical opinions that members of IGC may have for others exercising power, whether as being incharge of nomination processes for WGEC membership on behalf of the technical community or the civil society; or as members of the MAG who need to deal with issues related to whether 'IGF is getting commercialised' through inappropriate quid pro quo to corporate funders; or as the chair of a regional IGF who may publicly state a position about what is legitimate to be allowed as such quid pro quos....... The problem, in my view, is that opinions, including critical opinions, here get seen in two varieties - those which may be directed at multistakholderist platforms, and the 'respected people' associated with such platforms, and those with regard to all others..... While criticism of the latter kind is freely offered, in a rather unrestrained manner, any criticism - however valid - of some of the so called 'respected people' manning multistakeholder systems, and in the front line of the multistakeholder march, immidiately results in a reactive avalanche of rather strident, 'never do it again' kind of response. I think we need a bit of balance here.... All power is liable to be abused, multistakeholderist or not, and civil society spaces are the right places for all kind of question asking and accountability seeking. parminder > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. >> >> My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the >> WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are >> the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think >> the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help >> convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to >> respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. >> >> Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related >> to from this survey, and this is the position of several other >> participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the >> questionnaire. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not know Adam's reasons. >>> >>> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >>> >>> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. >>> >>> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. >>> >>> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >>>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>>> you get this from, Adam? >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 9 01:16:24 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:46:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <522D5541.6070600@itforchange.net> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> <522D5541.6070600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <522D59A8.2000301@itforchange.net> On Monday 09 September 2013 10:27 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 30 August 2013 01:30 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Dear Carlos, >> >> I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.) > > Adam > > We at IT for Change firmly believe that the legitimacy of civil > society depends on the representative representation , not representation... sorry > that it brings to the table. A position developed through wide > consultaitons and drawing wide support, especially from organisations > that have clear demonstrated links with marginalised groups, should > indeed be seen with that 'greater weight' it carries. What you > disparagingly call as 'shopping around' is what we in advocacy call as > consultation, networking and constituency building. > > The proposed joint statement was developed over a long period, with > intensive consultations and support building, for instance see the > joint statement > > by more 60 organisations to the May 2012 CSTD consultations on EC, > which statement is explicitly quoted in the present one, and the > proposed position on new mechanisms built from it. This earlier > statement, and IT for Change's earlier work, statements, network of > supporters etc were all listed in detail in the nomination form > submitted to the civil society nomination process for the WGEC > membership and the CSTD chair, on the basis of which I understand I > was selected to be a part of the WG on enhanced cooperation. > > Everything proposed in the new statement has often been discussed (at > least attempted to be discussed) on the IGC list... Even after the > questionnaire was issued, I have tried to trigger discussion on the EC > issue on this list and other CS lists... I fully participated in the > BestBits sub list that did some degree of discussion on this subject - > proposing, discussing, taking inputs on and responding to precisely > the kind of proposals that find place in the final statement > . > These proposals were discussed widely in the last few weeks, and > changed considerably owing to inputs from several people, including > those on this list. I have repeatedly written on many people to > provide inputs/ comments even if, for whatever reason, they are unable > to support the basic positions in this statement. > > So, no Adam, this is not 'shopping around'. This is what we do in > civil society to make connections, and gather legitimacy. We do not > believe that just anyone who can get travel money and is able to > ingratiate oneself with those in high places is a legitimate civil > society rep at policy bodies like the WGEC. Any civil society > representative at such bodies should be able to demonsrate her/ his > linkages to various constituencies, most of all of marginalised > groups, and constantly renew these linkages, and feed off them. That > is what we are doing. > > My colleague Anita said at Paris WSIS forum closing session, > "Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not > a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work > with and among people." We take this principle rather seriously.... > Unfortunately, in the IG space a lot of people have begun to believe > that if they have good relations with higher up in what may be called > as the 'multistakeholder space' and can keep getting support and good > words from the business sector, technical community, and well, > developed country gov guys, you have made it. No, that does not make > one civil society. One needs to to connect, and connect continuously, > to people 'down there'... > > (BTW, this is the list > > of 43 organisations and many more individuals that have supported the > position prepared by IT for Change as an input to the WG on Enhanced > cooperation.... This position still remains open for discussion, and > we are taking inputs for it. ) > > This said, civil society members who do enter committees and working > groups etc know pretty well their responsibilities as members of such > official groups, and so do I. I have taken note of your, Avir's and > Bill's comments. I have responded to most of them above. As to Bill's > proposal that I excuse myself when other civil society proposals are > being discussed, I dont consider it appropriate. All WG members will > discuss all of the proposals, being full cognizant of their roles as > WG members. Also, almost all WG members would have submitted their own > proposals. The two activities are not contradictory, or exclusive. > > parminder > > >> Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed opinions I hope. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. >>> >>> My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the >>> WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are >>> the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think >>> the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help >>> convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to >>> respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. >>> >>> Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related >>> to from this survey, and this is the position of several other >>> participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the >>> questionnaire. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I do not know Adam's reasons. >>>> >>>> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >>>> >>>> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. >>>> >>>> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. >>>> >>>> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>>>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>>>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>>>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >>>>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>>>> you get this from, Adam? >>>>> >>>>> fraternal regards >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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, seehttp://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 >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 9 01:19:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:49:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <522D5541.6070600@itforchange.net> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> <522D5541.6070600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <293BDE6C-960F-4B87-8310-D61B242506F4@hserus.net> Can you please avoid speaking for civil society by the way? >>the legitimacy of civil society depends on the representative that it brings to the table. This is true though. Which is why I find it difficult when people whose views I strongly disagree with claim to represent me, as part of civil society. --srs (iPad) On 09-Sep-2013, at 10:27, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 30 August 2013 01:30 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Dear Carlos, >> >> I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.) > > Adam > > We at IT for Change firmly believe that the legitimacy of civil society depends on the representative that it brings to the table. A position developed through wide consultaitons and drawing wide support, especially from organisations that have clear demonstrated links with marginalised groups, should indeed be seen with that 'greater weight' it carries. What you disparagingly call as 'shopping around' is what we in advocacy call as consultation, networking and constituency building. > > The proposed joint statement was developed over a long period, with intensive consultations and support building, for instance see the joint statement by more 60 organisations to the May 2012 CSTD consultations on EC, which statement is explicitly quoted in the present one, and the proposed position on new mechanisms built from it. This earlier statement, and IT for Change's earlier work, statements, network of supporters etc were all listed in detail in the nomination form submitted to the civil society nomination process for the WGEC membership and the CSTD chair, on the basis of which I understand I was selected to be a part of the WG on enhanced cooperation. > > Everything proposed in the new statement has often been discussed (at least attempted to be discussed) on the IGC list... Even after the questionnaire was issued, I have tried to trigger discussion on the EC issue on this list and other CS lists... I fully participated in the BestBits sub list that did some degree of discussion on this subject - proposing, discussing, taking inputs on and responding to precisely the kind of proposals that find place in the final statement. These proposals were discussed widely in the last few weeks, and changed considerably owing to inputs from several people, including those on this list. I have repeatedly written on many people to provide inputs/ comments even if, for whatever reason, they are unable to support the basic positions in this statement. > > So, no Adam, this is not 'shopping around'. This is what we do in civil society to make connections, and gather legitimacy. We do not believe that just anyone who can get travel money and is able to ingratiate oneself with those in high places is a legitimate civil society rep at policy bodies like the WGEC. Any civil society representative at such bodies should be able to demonsrate her/ his linkages to various constituencies, most of all of marginalised groups, and constantly renew these linkages, and feed off them. That is what we are doing. > > My colleague Anita said at Paris WSIS forum closing session, "Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people." We take this principle rather seriously.... Unfortunately, in the IG space a lot of people have begun to believe that if they have good relations with higher up in what may be called as the 'multistakeholder space' and can keep getting support and good words from the business sector, technical community, and well, developed country gov guys, you have made it. No, that does not make one civil society. One needs to to connect, and connect continuously, to people 'down there'... > > (BTW, this is the list of 43 organisations and many more individuals that have supported the position prepared by IT for Change as an input to the WG on Enhanced cooperation.... This position still remains open for discussion, and we are taking inputs for it. ) > > This said, civil society members who do enter committees and working groups etc know pretty well their responsibilities as members of such official groups, and so do I. I have taken note of your, Avir's and Bill's comments. I have responded to most of them above. As to Bill's proposal that I excuse myself when other civil society proposals are being discussed, I dont consider it appropriate. All WG members will discuss all of the proposals, being full cognizant of their roles as WG members. Also, almost all WG members would have submitted their own proposals. The two activities are not contradictory, or exclusive. > > parminder > > >> >> Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed opinions I hope. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. >>> >>> My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the >>> WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are >>> the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think >>> the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help >>> convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to >>> respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. >>> >>> Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related >>> to from this survey, and this is the position of several other >>> participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the >>> questionnaire. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I do not know Adam's reasons. >>>> >>>> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >>>> >>>> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. >>>> >>>> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. >>>> >>>> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>>>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>>>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>>>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >>>>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>>>> you get this from, Adam? >>>>> >>>>> fraternal regards >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>>>>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Sep 9 04:07:19 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:07:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call For Papers - Network Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Dear all, Please note that until 15 September it will be possible to submit a proposal for the 1sr Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (see: Call for Papers, below). Also, please note that the meeting of the DC has been scheduled on 25 October 2013, from 9:00 to 10:30, in room #7. The Report will be published online and distribited at the DC meeting. Please, do not hesitate to contact me (privately) should you have any questions.Best regards, Luca Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University Background“Network Neutrality” is an appealing and multifaceted expression which encompasses several areas and may give rise to misinterpretations. At its core, the notion of network-neutrality determines the extent to which Internet traffic management practices (TMP) may be regarded as legitimate, insofar as they do not qualify as discriminatory practices and they are consistent with the full enjoyment of human-rights. Yet, throughout the last decade, this polysemous formula has acquired different meanings, invading the province of telecommunications, content and security regulation. The Network Neutrality debate is gaining great political momentum. Indeed, many legislators are currently scrutinizing the opportunity of elaborating and adopting legislation on network neutrality. While everyone agrees that the fundamental rights of Internet users have to be safeguarded, the question remains as to how this end could be achieved, and what are the most effective means to achieve such an objective. CallThe Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, created under the auspices of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum, invites researchers and practitioners to submit a position paper on the issue of net neutrality and human rights. Position papers should provide relevant background information together with one or more propositions on how to preserve fundamental human rights (such as the right to privacy or freedom of expression) on the Internet of tomorrow. Suggested topics include, inter alia:Implementation of the Network Neutrality principle:• How to approach network neutrality? Regulation or co-regulation? • Is fair competition a sufficient safeguard for fundamental rights?• Can current examples of network-neutrality legislation be deemed as efficient?• Is there a difference between “open Internet” and “neutral Internet”? Impact of Network Neutrality on human rights:• Analysis of network neutrality case-law: Current violations of the Net Neutrality principle and their impact on human rights• How to reconcile anti-network neutrality arguments with the protection of human rights ?• From gateways to gatekeepers: assessing the role of ISPs with regard to access to information.• Net Neutrality and global access to the Internet: a “digital divide” issue• Digital democracy: the impact of network neutrality regulation on civic participation • Benefits and risks of Deep Packet Inspection as an Internet traffic management technique Submission Guidelines:Research papers, including analytical and theoretical papers, position papers, or case studies will be considered for inclusion in the report, even if they have been previously published.The length of the submissions should be between 3000 and 6000 words. To facilitate the reviewing process, papers should not include author names or other information that would help identify the authors.All paper should be in English language, and formatted according to the HWPiL style template.Submissions are due on September 15th, 2013. They should include the following elements:- Title- Short abstract (250 words)- Original contribution- Author’s name, affiliation and short bibliographical note (in the body of the email).Submissions should be sent to contact at networkneutrality.infoAuthors will be notified within approximately two weeks from the deadline as to the status of their contributions.All submitted papers will be subject to a rigorous double-blind peer review, whereby each paper will be reviewed by at least two reviewers. Everyone who submitted a paper will be asked to peer review another submission, which will be judged according to the novelty of the contribution, the theoretical soundness and the quality of presentation.Authors will be given the opportunity to improve their contributions based on peer comments.Selected papers will be published into the Dynamic Coalition report, which will be published under Open Access conditions. All authors must ensure that their contribution can be licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses of their choice.Some of the authors will also be invited (at their own expenses) to present their work at the first DC meeting to be held at the United Nation Internet Governance Forum 2013 in Bali. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2013-07-10 at 12.36.31 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 80970 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Mon Sep 9 16:44:39 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:44:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Joseph Nye on Cybersecurity (against an open Internet) Message-ID: The Mouse Click that Roared http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/addressing-the-cyber-security-challenge-by-joseph-s--nye 09 September 2013 CAMBRIDGE – Until recently, cyber security has primarily interested computer geeks and cloak-and-dagger types. The Internet’s creators, part of a small, enclosed community, were very comfortable with an open system in which security was not a primary concern. But, with some three billion or so users on the Web nowadays, that very openness has become a serious vulnerability; indeed, it is endangering the vast economic opportunities that the Internet has opened for the world. A “cyber attack” can take any number of forms, including simple probes, defacement of Web sites, denial-of-service attacks, espionage, and destruction of data. And the term “cyber war,” though best defined as any hostile action in cyberspace that amplifies or is equivalent to major physical violence, remains equally protean, reflecting definitions of “war” that range from armed conflict to any concerted effort to solve a problem (for example, “war on poverty”). Cyber war and cyber espionage are largely associated with states, while cyber crime and cyber terrorism are mostly associated with non-state actors. The highest costs currently stem from espionage and crime; but, over the next decade or so, cyber war and cyber terrorism may become greater threats than they are today. Moreover, as alliances and tactics evolve, the categories may increasingly overlap. Terrorists might buy malware from criminals, and governments might find it useful to hide behind both. Some people argue that deterrence does not work in cyberspace, owing to the difficulties of attribution. But that is facile: inadequate attribution affects inter-state deterrence as well, yet it still operates. Even when the source of an attack can be successfully disguised under a “false flag,” governments may find themselves sufficiently enmeshed in symmetrically interdependent relationships such that a major attack would be counterproductive. China, for example, would lose from an attack that severely damaged the American economy, and *vice versa*. An unknown attacker may also be deterred by cyber-security measures. If firewalls are strong, or redundancy and resilience allow quick recovery, or the prospect of a self-enforcing response (“an electric fence”) seems possible, an attack becomes less attractive. While accurate attribution of the ultimate source of a cyber attack is sometimes difficult, the determination does not have to be airtight. To the extent that false flags are imperfect and rumors of the source of an attack are widely deemed credible (though not legally probative), reputational damage to an attacker’s soft power may contribute to deterrence. Finally, a reputation for offensive capability and a declared policy that keeps open the means of retaliation can help to reinforce deterrence. Of course, non-state actors are harder to deter, so improved defenses such as pre-emption and human intelligence become important in such cases. But, among states, even nuclear deterrence was more complex than it first looked, and that is doubly true of deterrence in the cyber domain. Given its global nature, the Internet requires a degree of international cooperation to be able to function. Some people call for the cyber equivalent of formal arms-control treaties. But differences in cultural norms and the difficulty of verification would make such treaties hard to negotiate or implement. At the same time, it is important to pursue international efforts to develop rules of the road that can limit conflict. The most promising areas for international cooperation today most likely concern problems posed for states by third parties such as criminals and terrorists. Russia and China have sought to establish a treaty establishing broad international oversight of the Internet and “information security,” which would prohibit deception and embedding malicious code or circuitry that could be activated in the event of war. But the US has argued that arms-control measures banning offensive capabilities could weaken defenses against attacks and would be impossible to verify or enforce. Likewise, in terms of political values, the US has resisted agreements that could legitimize authoritarian governments’ censorship of the Internet – for example, by the “great firewall of China.” Moreover, cultural differences impede any broad agreements on regulating online content. Nonetheless, it may be possible to identify behaviors like cyber crime that are illegal in many domestic jurisdictions. Trying to limit all intrusions would be impossible, but one could start with cyber crime and cyber terrorism involving non-state parties. Here, major states would have an interest in limiting damage by agreeing to cooperate on forensics and controls. The transnational cyber domain poses new questions about the meaning of national security. Some of the most important responses must be national and unilateral, focused on hygiene, redundancy, and resilience. It is likely, however, that major governments will soon discover that the insecurity created by non-state cyber actors will require closer cooperation among governments. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Sep 9 16:50:21 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 06:50:21 +1000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Fw=3A_=5BISOC=5D_STATEMENT=3A_Inter?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?net_Society_Responds_to_Reports_of_the_U=2ES=2E_Governme?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?nt=92s_Circumvention_of_Encryption_Technology?= Message-ID: <0E8C8D3DBC7040838D25A1730D10CDE2@Toshiba> From: Wende Cover Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:02 AM To: isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org Subject: [ISOC] STATEMENT: Internet Society Responds to Reports of the U.S. Government’s Circumvention of Encryption Technology Internet Society Responds to Reports of the U.S. Government’s Circumvention of Encryption Technology The Internet Society is alarmed by continuing reports alleging systematic United States government efforts to circumvent Internet security mechanisms. The Internet Society President and CEO, Lynn St. Amour, said, “If true, these reports describe government programmes that undermine the technical foundations of the Internet and are a fundamental threat to the Internet’s economic, innovative, and social potential. Any systematic, state-level attack on Internet security and privacy is a rejection of the global, collaborative fabric that has enabled the Internet's growth to extend beyond the interests of any one country.” The Internet Society believes that global interoperability and openness of the Internet are pre-requisites for confidence in online interaction, they unlock the Internet as a forum for economic and social progress, and they are founded on basic assumptions of trust. We are deeply concerned that these principles are being eroded and that users' legitimate expectations of online security are being treated with contempt. As the institutional home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), we believe that open and transparent processes are essential for security standardization, and result in better outcomes than any alternative approach. For example, protocols developed by the IETF are open for all to see, inspect, and verify, as are the open and inclusive processes by which they are specified. IETF Chairman Jari Arkko has strongly reiterated the IETF’s commitment to improving security in the Internet, and to seeking ways of improving security protocols in light of these new revelations and security threats. “The IETF has a long-standing commitment to openness and transparency in developing security protocols for the Internet, and sees this as critical to confidence in their use and implementation.” To read more, visit: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/09/security-and-pervasive-monitoring/. However, the open development of robust technical specifications is just one link in the chain. Security standards must be properly implemented and used. This is a wake-up call for technology developers and adopters alike, to reexamine what we can do to ensure that all links in the chain are equally strong. This is key to helping restore public trust and confidence in the Internet. The Internet has tremendous potential for economic and social good, but unless all stakeholders trust the Internet as a safe place for business, social interaction, academic enquiry, and self-expression, those economic and social benefits are put at risk. To fulfill its potential, the Internet must be underpinned by the right combination of technology, operational processes, legislation, policy, and governance. The recent reports suggest that U.S. Government programmes have systematically undermined some or all of those measures, and that is why we view the revelations with such grave concern. With this mind, we issue these calls to action for the global community: • To every citizen of the Internet: let your government representatives know that, even in matters of national security, you expect privacy, rule of law, and due process in any handling of your data. Security is a collective responsibility that involves multiple stakeholders. In this regard, we call on: • Those involved in technology research and development: use the openness of standards processes like the IETF to challenge assumptions about security specifications. • Those who implement the technology and standards for Internet security: uphold that responsibility in your work, and be mindful of the damage caused by loss of trust. • Those who develop products and services that depend on a trusted Internet: secure your own services, and be intolerant of insecurity in the infrastructure on which you depend. • To every Internet user: ensure you are well informed about good practice in online security, and act on that information. Take responsibility for your own security. At the Internet Society, we remain committed to advancing work in areas such as browser security, privacy settings, and digital footprint awareness in order to help users understand and manage their privacy and security. The citizens of the Internet deserve a global and open platform for communication built on solid foundations of security and privacy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Sep 10 05:07:34 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:07:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Joseph Nye on Cybersecurity (against an open Internet) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Diego - A very insightful article... It is important to note the wide range of activities that might been categorized as "cyber crime", and hence the corresponding wide range of potential views on improving the potential for enforcement against non-state actors - for example, online theft of intellectual property (e.g movies, music), brand infringement, certain types of hate speech, political speech inciting unrest, and sharing of misappropriated documents could all be deemed "cyber crimes" by one government, but might not necessarily align with the expectations of others, or the expectations of various segments of the Internet community regarding what constitutes a "cyber crime"... One of the most difficult challenges we collectively face is how to establish a framework which allows for improvement in the safety and security of the Internet, without incidentally impacting the flexibility to differing norms and beliefs inherent in the system today. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. No intention to commit a "cyber-crime" through publication of this email, although reality may vary by jurisdiction. On Sep 9, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > The Mouse Click that Roared > > http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/addressing-the-cyber-security-challenge-by-joseph-s--nye > 09 September 2013 > > CAMBRIDGE – Until recently, cyber security has primarily interested computer geeks and cloak-and-dagger types. The Internet’s creators, part of a small, enclosed community, were very comfortable with an open system in which security was not a primary concern. But, with some three billion or so users on the Web nowadays, that very openness has become a serious vulnerability; indeed, it is endangering the vast economic opportunities that the Internet has opened for the world. > > A “cyber attack” can take any number of forms, including simple probes, defacement of Web sites, denial-of-service attacks, espionage, and destruction of data. And the term “cyber war,” though best defined as any hostile action in cyberspace that amplifies or is equivalent to major physical violence, remains equally protean, reflecting definitions of “war” that range from armed conflict to any concerted effort to solve a problem (for example, “war on poverty”). > > Cyber war and cyber espionage are largely associated with states, while cyber crime and cyber terrorism are mostly associated with non-state actors. The highest costs currently stem from espionage and crime; but, over the next decade or so, cyber war and cyber terrorism may become greater threats than they are today. Moreover, as alliances and tactics evolve, the categories may increasingly overlap. Terrorists might buy malware from criminals, and governments might find it useful to hide behind both. > > Some people argue that deterrence does not work in cyberspace, owing to the difficulties of attribution. But that is facile: inadequate attribution affects inter-state deterrence as well, yet it still operates. Even when the source of an attack can be successfully disguised under a “false flag,” governments may find themselves sufficiently enmeshed in symmetrically interdependent relationships such that a major attack would be counterproductive. China, for example, would lose from an attack that severely damaged the American economy, and vice versa. > > An unknown attacker may also be deterred by cyber-security measures. If firewalls are strong, or redundancy and resilience allow quick recovery, or the prospect of a self-enforcing response (“an electric fence”) seems possible, an attack becomes less attractive. > > While accurate attribution of the ultimate source of a cyber attack is sometimes difficult, the determination does not have to be airtight. To the extent that false flags are imperfect and rumors of the source of an attack are widely deemed credible (though not legally probative), reputational damage to an attacker’s soft power may contribute to deterrence. > > Finally, a reputation for offensive capability and a declared policy that keeps open the means of retaliation can help to reinforce deterrence. Of course, non-state actors are harder to deter, so improved defenses such as pre-emption and human intelligence become important in such cases. But, among states, even nuclear deterrence was more complex than it first looked, and that is doubly true of deterrence in the cyber domain. > > Given its global nature, the Internet requires a degree of international cooperation to be able to function. Some people call for the cyber equivalent of formal arms-control treaties. But differences in cultural norms and the difficulty of verification would make such treaties hard to negotiate or implement. At the same time, it is important to pursue international efforts to develop rules of the road that can limit conflict. The most promising areas for international cooperation today most likely concern problems posed for states by third parties such as criminals and terrorists. > > Russia and China have sought to establish a treaty establishing broad international oversight of the Internet and “information security,” which would prohibit deception and embedding malicious code or circuitry that could be activated in the event of war. But the US has argued that arms-control measures banning offensive capabilities could weaken defenses against attacks and would be impossible to verify or enforce. > > Likewise, in terms of political values, the US has resisted agreements that could legitimize authoritarian governments’ censorship of the Internet – for example, by the “great firewall of China.” Moreover, cultural differences impede any broad agreements on regulating online content. > > Nonetheless, it may be possible to identify behaviors like cyber crime that are illegal in many domestic jurisdictions. Trying to limit all intrusions would be impossible, but one could start with cyber crime and cyber terrorism involving non-state parties. Here, major states would have an interest in limiting damage by agreeing to cooperate on forensics and controls. > > The transnational cyber domain poses new questions about the meaning of national security. Some of the most important responses must be national and unilateral, focused on hygiene, redundancy, and resilience. It is likely, however, that major governments will soon discover that the insecurity created by non-state cyber actors will require closer cooperation among governments. > > > -- > 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) > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Tue Sep 10 07:16:10 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:16:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: REMOTE PARTICIPATION: UK IGF in London today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Quite a good panel right now - "What do we want from the IGF?". ** joly posted: "Today, Tuesday 10 September 2013 the UK Internet Governance Forum (UK-IGF) is taking place in London. Its aim is to provide a local forum in the UK that engages industry, government, parliament, academia and civil society in debate on Internet Governance " [image: UK IGF] Today, Tuesday 10 September 2013 the UK Internet Governance Forum(UK-IGF) is taking place in London. Its aim is to provide a local forum in the UK that engages industry, government, parliament, academia and civil society in debate on Internet Governance issues. Remote participation is being offered by ISOC England who are hosting three webex rooms throughout the day. The plenary sessions and workshop A are also being webcast via the Internet Society Chapters livestream channel . *What*: UK Internet Governance Forum 2013 *Where*: London UK *When*: Tuesday 10 September 2013 - 9am-5pm BST | 0800-1600 UTC | 0400-1100 EDT *Agenda*: http://ukigf.org.uk/uk-igf-2013-draft-agenda/ *Webex*: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=237521987&UID=0&PW=NNjEyNjYwNjE5&RT=MTgjMjE%3D *Webcast*: http://bit.ly/isoctv *Twitter*: #ukigf2013 Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5923 -- -- -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Sep 10 07:33:21 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:33:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Nominee for US Ambassador to UN in Geneva Message-ID: The White House recently announced the nomination of *Pamela Hamamoto*, a childhood friend and major fundraiser of President Obama's, to be the next ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, including agencies like the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Health Organization and International Telecommunication Union. http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=31587&utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vivekmisra99 at gmail.com Tue Sep 10 08:48:48 2013 From: vivekmisra99 at gmail.com (vivek misra) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:18:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nominee for US Ambassador to UN in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations to *Pamela Hamamoto*,. Regards Vivek Misra 9532331000 *India* On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > The White House recently announced the nomination of *Pamela Hamamoto*, a > childhood friend and major fundraiser of President Obama's, to be the next > ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, including agencies like the > World Intellectual Property Organization, World Health Organization and > International Telecommunication Union. > > > http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=31587&utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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'N' Thanks* ** *Vivek Misra* * **CISL INFO SOLUTION PVT LTD LUCKNOW Ph.+919532331000* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Tue Sep 10 12:07:06 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:07:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: REMOTE PARTICIPATION: UK IGF in London today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've archived the whole day at http://bit.ly/ukigf2013, but not the two governance workshops - they should show up as webex recordings on http://ukigf.org.uk/ On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > Quite a good panel right now - "What do we want from the IGF?". > > ** > joly posted: "Today, Tuesday 10 September 2013 the UK Internet > Governance Forum (UK-IGF) is taking place in London. Its aim is to provide > a local forum in the UK that engages industry, government, parliament, > academia and civil society in debate on Internet Governance " > > [image: UK IGF] Today, Tuesday 10 September 2013 > the UK Internet Governance Forum(UK-IGF) is taking place in London. Its aim is to provide a local forum in > the UK that engages industry, government, parliament, academia and civil > society in debate on Internet Governance issues. Remote participation is > being offered by ISOC England who are hosting three webex rooms throughout > the day. The plenary sessions and workshop A are also being webcast via the Internet > Society Chapters livestream channel . > > *What*: UK Internet Governance Forum 2013 > *Where*: London UK > *When*: Tuesday 10 September 2013 - 9am-5pm BST | 0800-1600 UTC | > 0400-1100 EDT > *Agenda*: http://ukigf.org.uk/uk-igf-2013-draft-agenda/ > *Webex*: > https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=237521987&UID=0&PW=NNjEyNjYwNjE5&RT=MTgjMjE%3D > *Webcast*: http://bit.ly/isoctv > *Twitter*: #ukigf2013 > > Comment See all comments > > > *Permalink* > http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5923 > > > > > -- > -- > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Sep 10 12:09:35 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:09:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: REMOTE PARTICIPATION: UK IGF in London today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you very much :-) Deirdre On 10 September 2013 12:07, Joly MacFie wrote: > I've archived the whole day at http://bit.ly/ukigf2013, but not the two > governance workshops - they should show up as webex recordings on > http://ukigf.org.uk/ > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > >> >> Quite a good panel right now - "What do we want from the IGF?". >> >> ** >> joly posted: "Today, Tuesday 10 September 2013 the UK Internet >> Governance Forum (UK-IGF) is taking place in London. Its aim is to provide >> a local forum in the UK that engages industry, government, parliament, >> academia and civil society in debate on Internet Governance " >> >> [image: UK IGF] Today, Tuesday 10 September 2013 >> the UK Internet Governance Forum(UK-IGF) is taking place in London. Its aim is to provide a local forum in >> the UK that engages industry, government, parliament, academia and civil >> society in debate on Internet Governance issues. Remote participation is >> being offered by ISOC England who are hosting three webex rooms throughout >> the day. The plenary sessions and workshop A are also being webcast via the Internet >> Society Chapters livestream channel . >> >> *What*: UK Internet Governance Forum 2013 >> *Where*: London UK >> *When*: Tuesday 10 September 2013 - 9am-5pm BST | 0800-1600 UTC | >> 0400-1100 EDT >> *Agenda*: http://ukigf.org.uk/uk-igf-2013-draft-agenda/ >> *Webex*: >> https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=237521987&UID=0&PW=NNjEyNjYwNjE5&RT=MTgjMjE%3D >> *Webcast*: http://bit.ly/isoctv >> *Twitter*: #ukigf2013 >> >> Comment See all comments >> >> >> *Permalink* >> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5923 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 karl at cavebear.com Tue Sep 10 16:53:41 2013 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:53:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Joseph Nye on Cybersecurity (against an open Internet) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <522F86D5.6060808@cavebear.com> >> CAMBRIDGE – Until recently, cyber security has primarily interested >> computer geeks and cloak-and-dagger types. The Internet’s creators, >> part of a small, enclosed community, were very comfortable with an >> open system in which security was not a primary concern. That's not strictly accurate. As early as 1972 I was working on issues of network (ARPAnet and similar nets) and operating security at System Development Corporation (SDC). However, much of our work was done for the United States "Department of Defense" - one can insert one's own notions of what that phrase might encompass - and was done under the cover of the typical protections that apply to such work; one would have to dig very deeply into paper archives, some of which may still be restricted, to find our work. But my point here is not historical, rather it is that it is most of our interest to keep the net running. And to that end we need to have means for repair people to diagnose and fix the net. These people need to be able to do things without being accused of being crackers or terrorists. These people are the network equivalent of surgeons - with very sharp and very scary tools - that could do bad things but who don't (usually). So before we lock down everything and accuse any and all who do anything odd, we need to distinguish between those who are keeping the net running and those who are attacking things. (There is a middle ground, much larger than people think, of those who are innocently doing bad things - often because of badly implemented software [of which there is a huge amount on the net] or lack of knowledge.) --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Sep 10 17:02:50 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:02:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Joseph Nye on Cybersecurity (against an open Internet) In-Reply-To: <522F86D5.6060808@cavebear.com> References: <522F86D5.6060808@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Esteemed Karl, "So before we lock down everything and accuse any and all who do anything odd, we need to distinguish between those who are keeping the net running and those who are attacking things." I've heard from the Deputy Secretary of Defense of the US that the country will keep those definitions a matter of discretion. I strongly believe that the rest of the World would be eager to set those things straight. On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > >> CAMBRIDGE – Until recently, cyber security has primarily interested > >> computer geeks and cloak-and-dagger types. The Internet’s creators, > >> part of a small, enclosed community, were very comfortable with an > >> open system in which security was not a primary concern. > > That's not strictly accurate. As early as 1972 I was working on issues > of network (ARPAnet and similar nets) and operating security at System > Development Corporation (SDC). > > However, much of our work was done for the United States "Department of > Defense" - one can insert one's own notions of what that phrase might > encompass - and was done under the cover of the typical protections that > apply to such work; one would have to dig very deeply into paper > archives, some of which may still be restricted, to find our work. > > But my point here is not historical, rather it is that it is most of our > interest to keep the net running. > > And to that end we need to have means for repair people to diagnose and > fix the net. These people need to be able to do things without being > accused of being crackers or terrorists. These people are the network > equivalent of surgeons - with very sharp and very scary tools - that > could do bad things but who don't (usually). > > So before we lock down everything and accuse any and all who do anything > odd, we need to distinguish between those who are keeping the net > running and those who are attacking things. > > (There is a middle ground, much larger than people think, of those who > are innocently doing bad things - often because of badly implemented > software [of which there is a huge amount on the net] or lack of > knowledge.) > > --karl-- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 marie.georges at noos.fr Tue Sep 10 17:18:42 2013 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:18:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Fw=3A_=5BISOC=5D_STATEMENT=3A_I?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?nternet_Society_Responds_to_Reports_of_the_U=2ES=2E_Gove?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?rnment=92s_Circumvention_of_Encryption_Technology?= In-Reply-To: <0E8C8D3DBC7040838D25A1730D10CDE2@Toshiba> References: <0E8C8D3DBC7040838D25A1730D10CDE2@Toshiba> Message-ID: Many thanks for having circulated the IS P and CEO's statement and the IETF's Chair's one. Much hope for the future ? Let me just share my experience with IETF: the day I tried, years ago, to influence the draft RFC on" cookies" from a "data privacy" perspective I completely failed. The subject of standardization/list of factual purposes of cookies could not be put on the table !! while under even the FIPs- FTC Data Privacy principles (and others, such as the CoE's or the EU directive), it it clear that the individual concerned 's choice (Yes/no) has to be based on several items of information , the first one being the "purpose" !!! Marie Le 9 sept. 2013 à 22:50, Ian Peter a écrit : > > > From: Wende Cover > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:02 AM > To: isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org > Subject: [ISOC] STATEMENT: Internet Society Responds to Reports of the U.S. Government’s Circumvention of Encryption Technology > > Internet Society Responds to Reports of the U.S. Government’s Circumvention of Encryption Technology > The Internet Society is alarmed by continuing reports alleging systematic United States government efforts to circumvent Internet security mechanisms. The Internet Society President and CEO, Lynn St. Amour, said, “If true, these reports describe government programmes that undermine the technical foundations of the Internet and are a fundamental threat to the Internet’s economic, innovative, and social potential. Any systematic, state-level attack on Internet security and privacy is a rejection of the global, collaborative fabric that has enabled the Internet's growth to extend beyond the interests of any one country.” > > The Internet Society believes that global interoperability and openness of the Internet are pre-requisites for confidence in online interaction, they unlock the Internet as a forum for economic and social progress, and they are founded on basic assumptions of trust. We are deeply concerned that these principles are being eroded and that users' legitimate expectations of online security are being treated with contempt. > As the institutional home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), we believe that open and transparent processes are essential for security standardization, and result in better outcomes than any alternative approach. For example, protocols developed by the IETF are open for all to see, inspect, and verify, as are the open and inclusive processes by which they are specified. > > IETF Chairman Jari Arkko has strongly reiterated the IETF’s commitment to improving security in the Internet, and to seeking ways of improving security protocols in light of these new revelations and security threats. “The IETF has a long-standing commitment to openness and transparency in developing security protocols for the Internet, and sees this as critical to confidence in their use and implementation.” To read more, visit: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/09/security-and-pervasive-monitoring/. > > However, the open development of robust technical specifications is just one link in the chain. Security standards must be properly implemented and used. This is a wake-up call for technology developers and adopters alike, to reexamine what we can do to ensure that all links in the chain are equally strong. This is key to helping restore public trust and confidence in the Internet. > > The Internet has tremendous potential for economic and social good, but unless all stakeholders trust the Internet as a safe place for business, social interaction, academic enquiry, and self-expression, those economic and social benefits are put at risk. To fulfill its potential, the Internet must be underpinned by the right combination of technology, operational processes, legislation, policy, and governance. The recent reports suggest that U.S. Government programmes have systematically undermined some or all of those measures, and that is why we view the revelations with such grave concern. > With this mind, we issue these calls to action for the global community: > > • To every citizen of the Internet: let your government representatives know that, even in matters of national security, you expect privacy, rule of law, and due process in any handling of your data. > > Security is a collective responsibility that involves multiple stakeholders. In this regard, we call on: > > • Those involved in technology research and development: use the openness of standards processes like the IETF to challenge assumptions about security specifications. > > • Those who implement the technology and standards for Internet security: uphold that responsibility in your work, and be mindful of the damage caused by loss of trust. > > • Those who develop products and services that depend on a trusted Internet: secure your own services, and be intolerant of insecurity in the infrastructure on which you depend. > > • To every Internet user: ensure you are well informed about good practice in online security, and act on that information. Take responsibility for your own security. > > At the Internet Society, we remain committed to advancing work in areas such as browser security, privacy settings, and digital footprint awareness in order to help users understand and manage their privacy and security. The citizens of the Internet deserve a global and open platform for communication built on solid foundations of security and privacy. > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Sep 11 04:12:44 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:12:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Mapping IGC Member Activities In-Reply-To: <20130908170448.001d56b1@quill> References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> <522AF96C.2020305@itforchange.net> <884D754D-B1A8-4FC0-9F80-C07104638D7C@gmail.com> <20130908170448.001d56b1@quill> Message-ID: Hello everyone, on decision of my doctor, I continue to take my rest for a clinical mental and physical health after hard tests due to the organization of the IGF Central Africa. I agree that we can capitalize on our experiences of IGF initiatives. But mostly evaluate the multi-stakeholder approach. This is just to see how different actors are involved, what are the difficulties encountered in organizing the forum .... Together, we can certainly discover faults, correct strategies and correct errors. He must be given sufficient time for this exchange. Baudouin 2013/9/8 Norbert Bollow > Sala wrote: > > > As it is there is already so much noise (challenges, competing > > priorities, political, socio economic issues) have to address that > > issues that we as a global community identify as critical or threats > > to an open and free internet can easily be laid on the backburner. > > > > Recently, we heard from our friends in Pakistan on what they are > > doing in their countries to raise awareness. Perhaps it could be > > useful to hear what civil society members are doing in their > > respective countries whether in Universities, or within their > > organisations or within their countries governments to advocate for > > an open and free internet. We could map and list this on the etherpad > > and it could prove useful for those wishing to share resources and > > experiences. What are your thoughts? > > A good idea, but I'm thinking that in order for this to work out, at > least someone would have to make a personal commitment to work on this > mapping exercise in a sustained manner... > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Sep 11 05:17:36 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:17:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Mapping IGC Member Activities In-Reply-To: References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> <522AEC0C.9020209@itforchange.net> <522AF96C.2020305@itforchange.net> <884D754D-B1A8-4FC0-9F80-C07104638D7C@gmail.com> <20130908170448.001d56b1@quill> Message-ID: I just wanted to clarify that locally, for standing up a platform local Internet governance in place, we have a bitter Consat. We have been surprised by the attitude of the various controversial government officials who oppose the use of the internet. They see the Internet as a harmful and dangerous technology for the security of the country and especially for the education of children. Paradoxically, 80% of young people use the internet, but only about 15% use the public know various Internet resources. Among adults, only 0.5 to 1%. The internet is exploited to 85% in private companies. 90% of the general public does not use the Internet for economic reasons, social, cultural and even political. However, most non-governmental organizations has commenced, initiate training in IT in some communities in Ayany target groups like youth. The African Cultural Exchange Center (CAFEC) has opted gait with a participatory local development committees in the process of decentralization taking place in the country to establish community access centers equipped with libraries as needed expressed by the direct beneficiaries during training information workshops. This is not a case which explains the need to take into account the needs EXPRESSED and turn them into positive action for the benefit of communities. the free and open internet depends largely on marketing communications and use that follows. The biggest problem now lies in the production of local content. 2013/9/11 Baudouin Schombe > Hello everyone, > on decision of my doctor, I continue to take my rest for a clinical mental > and physical health after hard tests due to the organization of the IGF > Central Africa. > I agree that we can capitalize on our experiences of IGF initiatives. But > mostly evaluate the multi-stakeholder approach. This is just to see how > different actors are involved, what are the difficulties encountered in > organizing the forum .... > Together, we can certainly discover faults, correct strategies and correct > errors. > He must be given sufficient time for this exchange. > Baudouin > > > 2013/9/8 Norbert Bollow > >> Sala wrote: >> >> > As it is there is already so much noise (challenges, competing >> > priorities, political, socio economic issues) have to address that >> > issues that we as a global community identify as critical or threats >> > to an open and free internet can easily be laid on the backburner. >> > >> > Recently, we heard from our friends in Pakistan on what they are >> > doing in their countries to raise awareness. Perhaps it could be >> > useful to hear what civil society members are doing in their >> > respective countries whether in Universities, or within their >> > organisations or within their countries governments to advocate for >> > an open and free internet. We could map and list this on the etherpad >> > and it could prove useful for those wishing to share resources and >> > experiences. What are your thoughts? >> >> A good idea, but I'm thinking that in order for this to work out, at >> least someone would have to make a personal commitment to work on this >> mapping exercise in a sustained manner... >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Sep 11 10:32:20 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:32:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC submission to the CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <5230780A.9050006@apc.org> References: <5230780A.9050006@apc.org> Message-ID: <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org> Dear friends Attached is APC's response to the CSTD WG on EC questionnaire. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_FINAL_10092013.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 106815 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Wed Sep 11 11:04:01 2013 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:04:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC submission to the CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you Anriette for this very thoughtful and encompassing document. The perspective of CS seems to me particularly well seen and advocated. Best Divina Le 11/09/13 16:32, « Anriette Esterhuysen » a écrit : > > > Dear friends > > Attached is APC's response to the CSTD WG on EC questionnaire. > > Anriette > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Sep 11 12:24:39 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:24:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] IAB Intergovtech initiative In-Reply-To: <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org> References: <5230780A.9050006@apc.org> <52307EF4.5060709@apc.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 ekenyanito at gmail.com Wed Sep 11 13:54:28 2013 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:54:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] APC submission to the CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org> References: <5230780A.9050006@apc.org> <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you Anriette for the document. It is well received. Regards, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Author| Researcher| Humanitarian "Sent from mobile office on my Portable Device." On Sep 11, 2013 5:33 PM, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: > > > Dear friends > > Attached is APC's response to the CSTD WG on EC questionnaire. > > Anriette > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Sep 12 04:51:30 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:51:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC submission to the CSTD WG on EC In-Reply-To: <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org> References: <5230780A.9050006@apc.org> <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette frankly, you RAISED most of our major concerns. This is a satisfactory answer. thank you 2013/9/11 Anriette Esterhuysen > > > Dear friends > > Attached is APC's response to the CSTD WG on EC questionnaire. > > Anriette > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > -- *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 Elvana.THACI at coe.int Thu Sep 12 05:27:53 2013 From: Elvana.THACI at coe.int (THACI Elvana) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:27:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Council of Europe Conference: Transparency to Protect Internet freedom: a Shared Commitment - Strasbourg 24-25 September 2013 Message-ID: <2BC8C1F8EE620E4DBF566BCF5F804CE338B4716D@V-Linguistix02.key.coe.int> Dear IGC members, This email is sent out as a reminder that registration is still open for the upcoming conference on "Transparency to protect Internet freedom: a shared commitment", Multi-stakeholder dialogue on enhanced cooperation for informed decision making which is being organised by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from, 24-25 September 2013. Please fill in the on-line registration form if you wish to attend. Also persons having expressed their intention to attend but who have not yet filled in the form are kindly asked do so at their earliest convenience. Doing so will ease logistics on arrival as entrance to the building requires that badges are prepared in advance. Kindest regards, Elvana ~ P.S. Apologies if you receive this message more than one time. Elvana Thaçi Administrator Internet Governance Unit Information Society and Action Against Crime Directorate DG I - Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Tel. + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98 Fax. + 33 (0) 3 88 41 27 05 E-mail: elvana.thaci at coe.int Internet:http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Sep 12 10:52:34 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:52:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: :MA-level course in Cybersecurity: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For those who might be interested in a course in cybersecurity: Dear friends, Just a reminder you that the call for applications for DiploFoundation's advanced thematic course in *Cybersecurity *closes in a few days. The course starts on 7 October. Details about the course are available at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/IGCBP-Adv-security (click on the orange tabs at the top), and also further down in this email. We would appreciate if you could forward this message to others whom you think may benefit from this course. Thank you. Best, Stephanie -- Stephanie Borg Psaila DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu Cybersecurity *Course details:* *Key words that we increasingly see in the media with regard to the Internet include stolen digital assets, attacks on government servers, Internet fraud, child pornography.* There is growing concern about misuse and abuse of the Internet. How do we ensure the future growth of the Internet as a facilitator of global economic and social growth, while also addressing the risks that it creates? The 10-week advanced thematic course in Cybersecurity covers in-depth aspects of privacy and security, core infrastructure and cyberterrorism, policies and strategies, as well as social aspects and other issues, including child online safety. By the end of the course, participants should be able to: - Identify the defining features of cybersecurity, and the factors which shape the international issues. - Identify principal threats to cybersecurity. Describe and analyse the key cybersecurity issues for users, and states. - Understand and analyse the Internet security issues for e-commerce including online banking and identity. - Explain the issues involved in cybercrime, its impact and investigation. - Understand the threats to the core Internet infrastructure. - Explain the concepts of cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism, and how their role in international Internet policy. - Understand and assess the challenges involved in social aspects of cybersecurity. - Explain and analyse the international frameworks for cybersecurity policies and strategies. The course forms part of the Thematic Phase of Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) . This phase offers in-depth courses that provide deeper understanding of a particular issue. Excerpt from course materials *‘...One side-effect of the rapid integration of the Internet in almost all aspects of human activity is the increased vulnerability of modern society. The Internet is part of the global critical infrastructure. Other core services of modern society, such as electric grids, transport systems, and health services are increasingly dependent on the Internet. As attacks on these systems may cause severe disruption and have huge financial consequences, they are frequent targets.’ *(Lexture text 4.3) Course outline The thematic course in Cybersecurity includes one week of hypertext practice and platform familiarisation and introduction, and 8 in-depth course texts: Chapter 1. Introduction to security. Chapter 2. Cybersecurity: online threats to individuals, privacy and security as challenges of cybersecurity, cybersecurity and public key infrastructure, building trust in e-commerce. Chapter 3. Cybercrime: history of cybercrime; classification; impact; framework for combating cybercrime; law enforcement; computer investigation; forensics; legal aspects of computer forensics. Chapter 4. Security of the Core Infrastructure: Domain Name System security; unilateral control, security Threats; future networks (smart networks/Internet of things). Chapter 5. Cyberwarfare and Cyberterrorism: International norms; the Geneva Convention; definitions of war and cyberwar; links to national security and critical infrastructure; links to international initiatives; cyberterrorism, DoS; control/governance of CIR. Chapter 6: Social Aspects of Cybersecurity: Privacy and security as challenges of cybersecurity; defining Internet safety; child protection; social aspects of cybersecurity. Chapter 7: Internet safety issues: Objectionable and harmful content; freedom of expression; reliability of information; health, ethics, and gender; and information aggression and openness. Chapter 8: Policies and strategies: Developed countries; international frameworks: Council of Europe; European Union directives related to data protection and cybersecurity strategy; ITU Draft Initiative on Cybersecurity; Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe; business initiatives; SAFECode; Intel and embedded security; importance and risks of public-private co-operation. Reviews ‘The course is updated with the latest security issues, so we have a global view of what is going on now, and what organisations are involved at international level in the fight against cybercriminality.’ ‘... [the course lecturer] has been very encouraging to think on even the different side which may not be very popular side. So both pros and cons of the issues come to light in the class, encouraging deeper learning.’ *Who should apply:* Diplo seeks applications from the following, from both developed and developing countries: - Officials in government ministries, departments, or institutions dealing with Information Society, Internet and ICT-related policy issues (e.g. telecommunications, education, foreign affairs, justice); - Postgraduate students, academics and researchers in the IG field (e.g. in telecommunications, electrical engineering, law, economics, development studies); - Civil society activists in the IG and Information Society fields; - Journalists covering IG issues; and - Individuals in Internet business-related fields (e.g. ISPs, software developers). This course may also be of interest to: - Practising diplomats, civil servants, and others working in international relations who want to refresh or expand their knowledge on the subject, under the guidance of experienced practitioners and academics. - Postgraduate students of diplomacy or international relations wishing to study topics not offered through their university programmes or diplomatic academies and to gain deeper insight through interaction with practising diplomats. *Methodology:* This course is conducted online over a period of ten weeks, including one week of classroom orientation, eight weeks of dynamic class content and activities, and one week for the final assignment. Reading materials and tools for online interaction are provided through an online classroom. Each week, participants read the provided lecture texts, adding comments, references, and questions in the form of hypertext entries. The tutor and other participants read and respond to these entries, creating interaction based on the lecture text. During the week, participants complete additional online activities (e.g. further discussion via blogs or forums or quizzes). At the end of the week, participants and tutors meet online in a chat room to discuss the week’s topic. Courses are based on a collaborative approach to learning, involving a high level of interaction. This course requires a minimum of 7-8 hours of study time per week. Participants are invited to join Diplo’s global Internet governance online community of over 1,400 members, and to attend monthly webinars and other IG-related events and activities. The course materials, the e-learning platform, and the working language of the course is English. Applicants should consider whether their reading and writing skills in English are sufficient to follow postgraduate level materials and discussion. *Prerequistes:* Applicants for the certificate course must have: - Either completed the course Introduction to Internet Governance, or have equivalent knowledge of Internet governance issues, or experience in the field, or experience of the multistakeholder approach in international affairs; - Sufficient ability in the English language to undertake postgraduate level studies (including reading academic texts, discussing complex concepts with other course participants, and submitting written essay assignments); - Regular access to the Internet (dial-up connection is sufficient, although broadband is preferable); - A minimum of 7-8 hours commitment per week, and the readiness to participate in class online sessions (once a week at specified times). *Fees:* The course fee for the Diplo Certificate Course is of €600. Applicants must pay full fees upon official acceptance into the course. The fee includes: - Full tuition - Course orientation pack where applicable (optional readings) - Access to all course materials online, via Diplo’s online classroom - Personal interaction via the online classroom with course lecturers, staff and other participants - Online technical support - For Diplo Certificate Courses, postgraduate-level certificate issued by DiploFoundation on successful completion of course requirements (interaction and participation, all assignments) Financial assistance A limited number of partial scholarships (maximum 20%) will be offered to participants from developing and emerging countries. Participants who would like to apply for financial assistance must upload the following documents with their application: - a CV or resumé; - a motivation letter outlining relevant professional and educational background, and interest in the course. As Diplo's ability to offer scholarship support is limited, candidates are strongly encouraged to seek scholarship funding directly from local or international institutions. Our guide to *Finding Scholarships for Online Study *may provide you with some useful starting points. *How to apply:* A number of routes for application are available: - Apply for this course as a Diplo certificate course (follow instructions below) - Take this course as part of the Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy *Learn more* about certificate and accredited courses, and about learning with Diplo . ------------------------------ Apply for the Diplo Certificate Course Applicants for certificate courses should apply online. Late applications will be considered if there are spaces available in the course. Please e-mail ig at diplomacy.edu to request a deadline extension. ------------------------------ For further information, please e-mail us at ig at diplomacy.eduGinger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 12 11:48:15 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:48:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] India Joins The Super-Snooper's Club (No Legality Required) Message-ID: FYI, http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130910/11220224471/india-joins-super-snoopers-club-no-legality-required.shtml -- 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 Thu Sep 12 22:17:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:17:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] If packets were toilets .. "plumbing neutrality" by John Levine Message-ID: <523275c4.yetEeDVDmIm5MQTG%suresh@hserus.net> Well worth a read. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130912_plumbing_neutrality/ --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 13 09:22:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 06:22:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00fc01ceb084$4b9dd690$e2d983b0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: listmom at warpspeed.com [mailto:listmom at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 5:38 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view [Note: This item comes from friend Gary Rimar. DLH] Verizon's diabolical plan to turn the Web into pay-per-view The carrier wants to charge websites for carrying their packets, but if they win it'd be the end of the Internet as we know it By Bill Snyder, InfoWorld Sep 12 2013 Think of all the things that tick you off about cable TV. Along with brainless programming and crummy customer service, the very worst aspect of it is forced bundling. You can't pay just for the couple of dozen channels you actually watch. Instead, you have to pay for a couple of hundred channels, because the good stuff is scattered among a number of overstuffed packages. Now, imagine that the Internet worked that way. You'd hate it, of course. But that's the direction that Verizon, with the support of many wired and wireless carriers, would like to push the Web. That's not hypothetical. The country's No. 1 carrier is fighting in court to end the Federal Communications Commission's policy of Net neutrality, a move that would open the gates to a whole new -- and wholly bad -- economic model on the Web. As it stands now, you pay your Internet service provider and go wherever you want on the Web. Packets of bits are just packets and have to be treated equally. That's the essence of Net neutrality. But Verizon's plan, which the company has outlined during hearings in federal court and before Congress, would change that. Verizon and its allies would like to charge websites that carry popular content for the privilege of moving their packets to your connected device. Again, that's not hypothetical. ESPN, for example, is in negotiations with at least one major cellular carrier to pay to exempt its content from subscribers' cellular data caps. And what's wrong with that? Well, ESPN is big and rich and can pay for that exemption, but other content providers -- think of your local jazz station that streams audio -- couldn't afford it and would be out of business. Or, they'd make you pay to visit their websites. Indeed, if that system had been in place 10 years ago, fledglings like Google or YouTube or Facebook might never have gotten out of the nest. Susan Crawford, a tech policy expert and professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, says Verizon wants to "cable-ize the Internet." She writes in her blog that "The question presented by the case is: Does the U.S. government have any role in ensuring ubiquitous, open, world-class, interconnected, reasonably priced Internet access?" Verizon: the new Standard Oil Verizon and other carriers answer that question by saying no. They argue that because they spent megabucks to build and maintain the network, they should be able to have a say over what content travels over it. They say that because Google and Facebook and other Internet companies make money by moving traffic over "their" networks, they should get a bigger piece of the action. (Never mind that pretty much every person and business that accesses Google or Facebook is already paying for the privilege, and paying more while getting less speed than users in most of Europe.) [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 13 15:50:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 07:50:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> Dear All, I just found out that on the 9th September, 2013, the DC Federal Appeals Court heard Verizon's challenge to FCC's open internet order, see below. Wish I was in DC to have sat in to hear the saline arguments. See below for more information. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Manoj Ranchord > Date: September 14, 2013, 6:59:19 AM GMT+12:00 > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Subject: Fw: The Gilder Friday Letter > > > FYI - some commentary on net neutrality. > > Ps. This is a good source for alternative view from predominant opinion. > > From: Forbes Newsletters ; > To: ; > Subject: The Gilder Friday Letter v.567.0 > Sent: Fri, Sep 13, 2013 1:00:34 PM > > > _______________________________________________ > > — THE FRIDAY LETTER — > (emailed weekly, from Gilder Publishing, LLC > for Forbes friends and subscribers) > _______________________________________________ > > | http://www.gilder.com/ | Issue 568.0/September 13, 2013 > > LIKE US ON FACEBOOK > http://www.facebook.com/#!/GilderFridayLetter > > HEADLINES: > > - The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court > - Friday Feature / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court > - Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited > - Readings / > > Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of > Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World > > Ronald Reagan's most–quoted living author—George Gilder—is back with an all–new paradigm–shifting theory of capitalism that will upturn conventional wisdom, just when our economy desperately needs a new direction. > > ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY > http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=%20gilderpublish-20 > > The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court > > BRET SWANSON, Maximum Entropy (09/09/13): Today the D.C. Federal Appeals Court hears Verizon's challenge to the Federal Communications Commission's "Open Internet Order" — better known as "net neutrality." > > Hard to believe, but we've been arguing over net neutrality for a decade. I just pulled up some testimony George Gilder and I prepared for a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in April 2004. In it, we asserted that a newish "horizontal layers" regulatory proposal, then circulating among comm–law policy wonks, would become the next big tech policy battlefield. Horizontal layers became net neutrality, the Bush FCC adopted the non-binding Four Principles of an open Internet in 2005, the Obama FCC pushed through actual regulations in 2010, and now today's court challenge, which argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate the Internet and that, in fact, Congress told the FCC not to regulate the Internet. > > Over the years we've followed the debate, and often weighed in. Here's a sampling of our articles, reports, reply comments, and even some doggerel: > > "CBS–Time Warner Cable Spat Shows (Once Again) Why 'Net Neutrality' Won't Work" – by Bret Swanson – August 9, 2013 > > "Verizon, ESPN, and the Future of Broadband" – by Bret Swanson – Forbes.com – June 4, 2013 > > "The Internet Survives, and Thrives, For Now" – by Bret Swanson – RealClearMarkets – December 6, 2010 > > "Reply Comments to the FCC's Open Internet Further Inquiry" – by Bret Swanson – November 4, 2010 > > "Net Neutrality, Investment, and Jobs: Assessing the Potential Impact on the Broadband Ecosystem" – by Charles M. Davidson and Bret T. Swanson, Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute, New York Law School, June 16, 2010 > > "Reply Comments in the FCC Matter of 'Preserving the Open Internet'" – by Bret Swanson – April 26, 2010 > > "What Would Net Neutrality Mean for U.S. Jobs?" – by Bret Swanson – February 5, 2010 > > "Net Neutrality's Impact on Internet Innovation" – prepared for the New York City Council – by Bret Swanson – November 20, 2009 > > "Google and the Problem With 'Net Neutrality'" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2009 > > "Leviathan Spam" – by Bret Swanson – A whimsical take on "Net Neutrality" – September 23, 2009 > > "Unleashing the 'Exaflood'" – by Bret Swanson and George Gilder, The Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2008 > > "The Coming Exaflood" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, January 20, 2007 > > "Let There Be Bandwidth" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2006 > > "Testimony For Telecommunications Policy: A Look Ahead" – testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee – by George Gilder – April 28, 2004 > > More from Bret Swanson: > http://www.bretswanson.com/ > > REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: > http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 > > > WEALTH & POVERTY: A New Edition for the 21st Century > > The New York Times bestseller Wealth and Poverty by George Gilder is one of the most famous economic books of all time and has sold more than one million copies since its first release. > > In the new, completely updated, edition, Gilder compares America's current economic challenges with her past economic problems, and explains why Obama's big–government, redistributive policies are doing more harm than good. Wealth and Poverty (2012) offers solutions to America's current economic problems and hope to those who fear that our best days are behind us. > > Order Your Copy Today! > > Friday Feature /Israeli Companies Are On Sale > > Gilder Telecosm Forum MEMBER (09/09/13): George, Please give us a futurist's view of what we should be investing in. Thanks in advance for your reply. > > GEORGE GILDER, Gilder Telecosm Forum (09/10/13): I'll work on it, though my noggin is mostly full of information theory these days. The environment for small and mid–sized tech is ferocious. Now that the EPA has effectively banned nanotech, regarding carbon nanotubes as a new form of asbestos, and network neutrality threatens the Internet, I might have to resort to biotech, as long as it remains legal (genetic modification, eek!). > > Meanwhile, I'll make do with my usual suspects, most of which you can buy more cheaply than ever. I would particularly note that great Israeli companies such as the cloud security paragon RADW are on sale. EZCH is still the best semiconductor company in the world and an even better stock because it remains widely unrecognized; TSEM is still the best analog play and also even cheaper despite its increasingly stable finances; CGEN is no longer in the bargain basement but is worth a bet; EVGN.TA remains attractive; INTC is an Israeli company in disguise and is on sale despite its world leading fabs and attractive Moore's Law double dividends; AMD spearheads graphics processors and will gain with clouds; ADSK seems well valued but it is the leader in 3D CAD and moving into the cloud with ever ascendant and unique software from Otoy; and AUDC is now better valued but it is a survivor at layer–five at a time when everything is becoming sessions… > > Read more posts by George Gilder and the Telecosm Forum members by logging on to the Gilder Telecosm Forum with your subscriber password at www.gildertech.com. > > REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: > http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 > > > The Israel Test: Why the World's Most Besieged State > is a Beacon of Freedom and Hope for the World Economy > > Have you ever wondered why, in our time, it is the Left that leads the attack on Israel? After reading The Israel Test you will never wonder again. George Gilder's brilliant work definitively shows how America's ability and desire to defend Israel will define our survival as a nation: "If Israel is destroyed, capitalist Europe will likely die as well, and America, as the epitome of productive and creative capitalism spurred by Jews, will be in jeopardy." > > ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY [Now in Paperback!] > Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited > > STEPHEN MOORE, Wall Street Journal Book Review of "The Growth Experiment Revisited", By Lawrence Lindsey (09/09/13): When Ronald Reagan endorsed the idea of supply–side tax cuts in 1981, he turned 50 years of economic orthodoxy on its head. Even Republicans like Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee, who voted for the cuts, called it "a riverboat gamble." What followed was a quarter–century of nearly unprecedented wealth creation and technological progress. America's net worth exploded by nearly $40 trillion in these years, and nearly 40 million Americans were added to business payrolls. > > Now, in the wake of the great recession of 2008–09 and the fifth year of the most meager of Keynesian "recoveries," it is a good time to re–explore how supply–side policies set America on the prosperity path in the go–go years of the 1980s and '90s. This is what Lawrence Lindsey's "The Growth Experiment Revisited" sets out to do. > > The 1980s boom was launched on the simple insight that, by lowering tax rates and regulatory hurdles and juicing the incentives to produce, innovate and take risks, the animal spirits of the American free–enterprise system would revive. Two seminal books hatched the supply–side revolution. The first was Jude Wanniski's "The Way the World Works" (1978); the second, George Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty" (1981). > > Almost as influential, coming a few years later, was Lawrence Lindsey's "The Growth Experiment" (1990). Slightly academic in nature, it was the first book to quantify the economic and revenue windfall of the 1981 Reagan across–the–board tax cuts. Mr. Lindsey's conclusion was that Reagan's 1981 tax act quickened the pace of production, which reduced the predicted revenue loss. His research found that although the Reagan tax cuts didn't "pay for themselves," the ones at the highest end of the income spectrum "did produce a revenue gain" because of "changes in taxpayer behavior." He concluded that "the core supply–side tenet—that tax rates powerfully affect the willingness of taxpayers to work, save and invest, and thereby also affect the health of the economy—won as stunning a vindication as has been seen in at least a half–century of economics." > > He has now updated his book, taking us through the booms and busts of the past 20 years. It is a valuable project in part because Mr. Lindsey was a front–seat economic adviser to George W. Bush, serving as director of the National Economic Council and as one of the architects of the often–maligned 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. > > Mr. Lindsey's central claim is that those tax changes saved the economy from the undertow of the financial meltdown at the end of the Clinton presidency. The bursting of the high–tech bubble in 1999–2000, which tends to be forgotten, was followed by the turmoil and economic upheaval after 9/11. Mr. Lindsey makes a convincing case that Mr. Bush doesn't receive nearly the credit he deserves for steering the economy clear of a mini–depression in the early 2000s. The economic revival of 2003–07 wasn't particularly speedy, but it looks impressive today when compared with the dismal results of Obamanomics. > > The purpose of the tax cuts, Mr. Lindsey writes, was "to provide a cushion for the economy when the bubble burst." They were designed as an "insurance policy" against a downturn. The author says that he was driven by a lesson, impressed upon him by then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, not to repeat the policy mistakes after the 1929 stock market crash, when taxes and tariffs were raised in 1930 and 1931. They only exacerbated the length and severity of the Depression. > > Mr. Lindsey writes that the Bush tax cut in 2001 was "a standard Keynesian remedy for a recession" but "with a supply–side twist," and that it helped avert a deeper recession. "The economy began to recover as soon as the tax–cut checks hit," he insists. Those policies consisted mainly of tax rebates, credits and a slow phase–down of rates (to a 35% maximum). On the opinion pages of this newspaper we have questioned the bang–for–the–buck quality of the 2001 tax package, arguing that, contrary to Mr. Lindsey's claim, the rebates and credits bumped up consumption in only a minor and temporary way and that what was needed was permanent tax–rate reductions to encourage investment and work. It is true that the economy revived in 2001 and 2002, but only haltingly. > > The real economic sparkplug was the 2003 investment–tax cut, which lowered the rate on capital gains and dividends. Not only did growth accelerate, but stocks rose in value—as Mr. Lindsey had predicted—and revenues to the federal government exploded by nearly $800 billion until 2008, when the bursting of the housing bubble sent the economy into the intensive–care unit. > > For all the moaning about growing deficits under Mr. Bush, Mr. Lindsey defends the record of the president he worked for: The cumulative debt during Mr. Bush's two terms, he notes, added $2 trillion—or less than the amount Barack Obama borrowed in his first two years in office. This is true, though it ignores the fact that Mr. Bush left behind a deficit that was headed to $1 trillion in 2009 no matter who became president. Mr. Lindsey sees vindication in Mr. Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone in 2011 and for "99 percent of all taxpayers" in 2013. > > The puzzle of Mr. Lindsey is that one of the most prominent defenders of supply–side economics and lower tax rates is also a disciple of demand–side economics: He believes that, in times of recession, Keynesian fiscal policies designed to increase overall demand will help steer an economy back on the growth path. Both tax cuts and spending increases, he says, "may be sensible as counter–cyclical policies." > > That isn't everyone's reading of history, of course. What is beyond dispute, after reading Mr. Lindsey's book, is that tax rates have a direct effect on the health of the economy, a lesson that the current Obama administration has chosen to ignore. > > Comment On This: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579055323264287530.html > __________________________________________ > > Like The Gilder Friday Letter on Facebook: > http://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Gilders-Friday-Letter/215657745111042?v=wall > __________________________________________ > > Readings / > > ABC's Monday Night Football Offers Essential Lesson In Economics > http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/09/08/abcs-monday-night-football-offers-an-essential-lesson-in-economics/ > > Hey GOP! Get Smart Fighting Obamacare > http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/09/04/hey-gop-get-smart-fighting-obamacare/ > > John Scully Just Gave His Most Detailed Account of How Steve Jobs Got Fired From Apple > http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/09/09/john-sculley-just-gave-his-most-detailed-account-ever-of-how-steve-jobs-got-fired-from-apple/ > > Startup Culture is Killing Innovation > http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-do-research-when-you-can-fail-fast-pivot-and-act-out-other-popular-startup-cliches/ > > Wall Street Give New iPhone Thumbs Down > http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/11/wall-street-gives-apples-new-iphones-thumbs-down/ ________________________________ > ADVERTISING INFORMATION > The Friday Letter is emailed each week to 100,000–plus subscribers and friends of Gilder Publishing, including industry leaders, financial professionals and individual investors. For information about advertising, contact Diane Schmid at dschmid at forbes.com. > > FEEDBACK AND PROBLEMS > For technical problems, or to send letters to the editor, please e-mail info at gilder.com. > > MAILING ADDRESS > Gilder Publishing, LLC > ATTN: Friday Letter > 291A Main Street > Great Barrington, MA 01230 > _______________________________________________ > > The Friday Letter is published weekly for subscribers and friends of Gilder Publishing. If someone you know would enjoy it, please feel free to forward a copy. > > Gilder Publishing makes the Friday Letter available for free. To help defray some of the costs of producing this information on a weekly basis, we will from time to time be sending you offers from companies we think you'll be interested in. These offers will not come more than once a week. If you do not wish to receive this related information, please opt out of this process at the link below and we will not share your name with companies outside of Gilder Publishing. > > To SUBSCRIBE please visit http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 > To UNSUBSCRIBE please go to: > http://forbes-news.psmessage.com/Sub/40/0/31sbhcqKtgqfp2Kzz7zK5qpcz2zK0rizKzf7s3 > > Copyright 2013 Gilder Publishing LLC > > You are receiving this email as an opted-in subscriber to Forbes Newsletters. You are on our mailing list as: mranchord at yahoo.co.nz > > If you do not want to receive email offers from Forbes Newsletters in the future, click here. > > You may also email your opt-out request to privacyadmin at forbes.com > or send your request in the mail directly to Forbes Inc. > > Attn: Privacy Administrator 60 Fifth Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10011. > > Please click below to review our privacy policy: > http://www.forbes.com/fdc/privacy.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Fri Sep 13 16:12:29 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:12:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> Message-ID: A recording of the arguments are available - it's a good listen! See http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5915 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I just found out that on the 9th September, 2013, the DC Federal Appeals > Court heard Verizon's challenge to FCC's open internet order, see below. > > Wish I was in DC to have sat in to hear the saline arguments. > > See below for more information. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Manoj Ranchord > *Date:* September 14, 2013, 6:59:19 AM GMT+12:00 > *To:* "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > *Subject:* *Fw: The Gilder Friday Letter* > > FYI - some commentary on net neutrality. > > Ps. This is a good source for alternative view from predominant opinion. > > ------------------------------ > * From: * Forbes Newsletters ; > * To: * ; > * Subject: * The Gilder Friday Letter v.567.0 > * Sent: * Fri, Sep 13, 2013 1:00:34 PM > > _______________________________________________ > > *— THE FRIDAY LETTER —* > *(emailed weekly, from Gilder Publishing, LLC > for Forbes friends and subscribers)* > _______________________________________________ > > | http://www.gilder.com/| Issue 568.0/September 13, 2013 > > *LIKE US ON FACEBOOK* > http://www.facebook.com/#!/GilderFridayLetter > > > HEADLINES: > > - The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court > - Friday Feature / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court > - Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited > - Readings / > > *Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of > Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World > > *Ronald Reagan's most–quoted living author—George Gilder—is back with an > all–new paradigm–shifting theory of capitalism that will upturn > conventional wisdom, just when our economy desperately needs a new > direction. > > *ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY * > http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=%20gilderpublish-20 > > > > *The Week* / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court > > *BRET SWANSON, Maximum Entropy* *(09/09/13)*: Today the D.C. Federal > Appeals Court hears Verizon's challenge to the Federal Communications > Commission's "Open Internet Order" — better known as "net neutrality." > > Hard to believe, but we've been arguing over net neutrality for a decade. > I just pulled up some testimony George Gilder and I prepared for a Senate > Commerce Committee hearing in April 2004. In it, we asserted that a newish > "horizontal layers" regulatory proposal, then circulating among comm–law > policy wonks, would become the next big tech policy battlefield. Horizontal > layers became net neutrality, the Bush FCC adopted the non-binding Four > Principles of an open Internet in 2005, the Obama FCC pushed through actual > regulations in 2010, and now today's court challenge, which argues that the > FCC has no authority to regulate the Internet and that, in fact, Congress > told the FCC not to regulate the Internet. > > Over the years we've followed the debate, and often weighed in. Here's a > sampling of our articles, reports, reply comments, and even some doggerel: > > "CBS–Time Warner Cable Spat Shows (Once Again) Why 'Net Neutrality' Won't > Work"– by Bret Swanson – August 9, 2013 > > "Verizon, ESPN, and the Future of Broadband"– by Bret Swanson – > *Forbes.com* – June 4, 2013 > > "The Internet Survives, and Thrives, For Now"– by Bret Swanson – RealClearMarkets – December 6, 2010 > > "Reply Comments to the FCC's Open Internet Further Inquiry"– by Bret Swanson – November 4, 2010 > > "Net Neutrality, Investment, and Jobs: Assessing the Potential Impact on > the Broadband Ecosystem"– by Charles M. Davidson and Bret T. Swanson, Advanced Communications Law > and Policy Institute, New York Law School, June 16, 2010 > > "Reply Comments in the FCC Matter of 'Preserving the Open Internet'"– by Bret Swanson – April 26, 2010 > > "What Would Net Neutrality Mean for U.S. Jobs?"– by Bret Swanson – February 5, 2010 > > "Net Neutrality's Impact on Internet Innovation"– prepared for the New York City Council – by Bret Swanson – November 20, > 2009 > > "Google and the Problem With 'Net Neutrality'"– by Bret Swanson, > *The Wall Street Journal*, October 5, 2009 > > "Leviathan Spam"– by Bret Swanson – A whimsical take on "Net Neutrality" – September 23, > 2009 > > "Unleashing the 'Exaflood'"– by Bret Swanson and George Gilder, > *The Wall Street Journal*, February 22, 2008 > > "The Coming Exaflood"– by Bret Swanson, > *The Wall Street Journal*, January 20, 2007 > > "Let There Be Bandwidth"– by Bret Swanson, > *The Wall Street Journal*, March 7, 2006 > > "Testimony For Telecommunications Policy: A Look Ahead"– testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee – by George Gilder – April > 28, 2004 > > *More from Bret Swanson:* > http://www.bretswanson.com/ > > *REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER:* > http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 > > *WEALTH & POVERTY: A New Edition for the 21st Century > > *The *New York Times* bestseller *Wealth and Poverty* by *George Gilder*is one of the most famous economic books of all time and has sold more than > one million copies since its first release. > > In the new, completely updated, edition, Gilder compares America's current > economic challenges with her past economic problems, and explains why > Obama's big–government, redistributive policies are doing more harm than > good. *Wealth and Poverty* (2012) offers solutions to America's current > economic problems and hope to those who fear that our best days are behind > us.* > > Order Your Copy Today! > * > > *Friday Feature* /Israeli Companies Are On Sale > > Gilder Telecosm Forum > *MEMBER* *(09/09/13)*: George, Please give us a futurist's view of what > we should be investing in. Thanks in advance for your reply. > > *GEORGE GILDER*, Gilder Telecosm Forum > > *(09/10/13)*: I'll work on it, though my noggin is mostly full of > information theory these days. The environment for small and mid–sized tech > is ferocious. Now that the EPA has effectively banned nanotech, regarding > carbon nanotubes as a new form of asbestos, and network neutrality > threatens the Internet, I might have to resort to biotech, as long as it > remains legal (genetic modification, eek!). > > Meanwhile, I'll make do with my usual suspects, most of which you can buy > more cheaply than ever. I would particularly note that great Israeli > companies such as the cloud security paragon *RADW* are on sale. *EZCH*is still the best semiconductor company in the world and an even better > stock because it remains widely unrecognized; *TSEM* is still the best > analog play and also even cheaper despite its increasingly stable finances; > *CGEN* is no longer in the bargain basement but is worth a bet; *EVGN.TA*remains attractive; > *INTC* is an Israeli company in disguise and is on sale despite its world > leading fabs and attractive Moore's Law double dividends; *AMD*spearheads graphics processors and will gain with clouds; > *ADSK* seems well valued but it is the leader in 3D CAD and moving into > the cloud with ever ascendant and unique software from *Otoy*; and *AUDC*is now better valued but it is a survivor at layer–five at a time when > everything is becoming sessions… > > *Read more posts by George Gilder and the Telecosm Forum members by > logging on to the* Gilder Telecosm Forum > *with your subscriber password at* www.gildertech.com. > > *REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER:* > http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 > > *The Israel Test: Why the World's Most Besieged State > is a Beacon of Freedom and Hope for the World Economy * > > Have you ever wondered why, in our time, it is the Left that leads the > attack on Israel? After reading* The Israel Test > * you will never wonder again. George Gilder's brilliant work > definitively shows how America's ability and desire to defend Israel will > define our survival as a nation:* "If Israel is destroyed, capitalist > Europe will likely die as well, and America, as the epitome of productive > and creative capitalism spurred by Jews, will be in jeopardy."* > > *ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY* [*Now in Paperback!*] > > *Blogger Bonus* / The Growth Experiment Revisited > > *STEPHEN MOORE, Wall Street Journal Book Review of "The Growth Experiment > Revisited", By Lawrence Lindsey** (09/09/13)*: When Ronald Reagan > endorsed the idea of supply–side tax cuts in 1981, he turned 50 years of > economic orthodoxy on its head. Even Republicans like Sen. Howard Baker of > Tennessee, who voted for the cuts, called it "a riverboat gamble." What > followed was a quarter–century of nearly unprecedented wealth creation and > technological progress. America's net worth exploded by nearly $40 trillion > in these years, and nearly 40 million Americans were added to business > payrolls. > > Now, in the wake of the great recession of 2008–09 and the fifth year of > the most meager of Keynesian "recoveries," it is a good time to re–explore > how supply–side policies set America on the prosperity path in the go–go > years of the 1980s and '90s. This is what Lawrence Lindsey's "The Growth > Experiment Revisited" sets out to do. > > The 1980s boom was launched on the simple insight that, by lowering tax > rates and regulatory hurdles and juicing the incentives to produce, > innovate and take risks, the animal spirits of the American free–enterprise > system would revive. Two seminal books hatched the supply–side revolution. > The first was Jude Wanniski's "The Way the World Works" (1978); the second, > George Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty"(1981). > > Almost as influential, coming a few years later, was Lawrence Lindsey's > "The Growth Experiment" (1990). Slightly academic in nature, it was the > first book to quantify the economic and revenue windfall of the 1981 Reagan > across–the–board tax cuts. Mr. Lindsey's conclusion was that Reagan's 1981 > tax act quickened the pace of production, which reduced the predicted > revenue loss. His research found that although the Reagan tax cuts didn't > "pay for themselves," the ones at the highest end of the income spectrum > "did produce a revenue gain" because of "changes in taxpayer behavior." He > concluded that "the core supply–side tenet—that tax rates powerfully affect > the willingness of taxpayers to work, save and invest, and thereby also > affect the health of the economy—won as stunning a vindication as has been > seen in at least a half–century of economics." > > He has now updated his book, taking us through the booms and busts of the > past 20 years. It is a valuable project in part because Mr. Lindsey was a > front–seat economic adviser to George W. Bush, serving as director of the > National Economic Council and as one of the architects of the > often–maligned 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. > > Mr. Lindsey's central claim is that those tax changes saved the economy > from the undertow of the financial meltdown at the end of the Clinton > presidency. The bursting of the high–tech bubble in 1999–2000, which tends > to be forgotten, was followed by the turmoil and economic upheaval after > 9/11. Mr. Lindsey makes a convincing case that Mr. Bush doesn't receive > nearly the credit he deserves for steering the economy clear of a > mini–depression in the early 2000s. The economic revival of 2003–07 wasn't > particularly speedy, but it looks impressive today when compared with the > dismal results of Obamanomics. > > The purpose of the tax cuts, Mr. Lindsey writes, was "to provide a cushion > for the economy when the bubble burst." They were designed as an "insurance > policy" against a downturn. The author says that he was driven by a lesson, > impressed upon him by then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, not to > repeat the policy mistakes after the 1929 stock market crash, when taxes > and tariffs were raised in 1930 and 1931. They only exacerbated the length > and severity of the Depression. > > Mr. Lindsey writes that the Bush tax cut in 2001 was "a standard Keynesian > remedy for a recession" but "with a supply–side twist," and that it helped > avert a deeper recession. "The economy began to recover as soon as the > tax–cut checks hit," he insists. Those policies consisted mainly of tax > rebates, credits and a slow phase–down of rates (to a 35% maximum). On the > opinion pages of this newspaper we have questioned the bang–for–the–buck > quality of the 2001 tax package, arguing that, contrary to Mr. Lindsey's > claim, the rebates and credits bumped up consumption in only a minor and > temporary way and that what was needed was permanent tax–rate reductions to > encourage investment and work. It is true that the economy revived in 2001 > and 2002, but only haltingly. > > The real economic sparkplug was the 2003 investment–tax cut, which lowered > the rate on capital gains and dividends. Not only did growth accelerate, > but stocks rose in value—as Mr. Lindsey had predicted—and revenues to the > federal government exploded by nearly $800 billion until 2008, when the > bursting of the housing bubble sent the economy into the intensive–care > unit. > > For all the moaning about growing deficits under Mr. Bush, Mr. Lindsey > defends the record of the president he worked for: The cumulative debt > during Mr. Bush's two terms, he notes, added $2 trillion—or less than the > amount Barack Obama borrowed in his first two years in office. This is > true, though it ignores the fact that Mr. Bush left behind a deficit that > was headed to $1 trillion in 2009 no matter who became president. Mr. > Lindsey sees vindication in Mr. Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax > cuts for everyone in 2011 and for "99 percent of all taxpayers" in 2013. > > The puzzle of Mr. Lindsey is that one of the most prominent defenders of > supply–side economics and lower tax rates is also a disciple of demand–side > economics: He believes that, in times of recession, Keynesian fiscal > policies designed to increase overall demand will help steer an economy > back on the growth path. Both tax cuts and spending increases, he says, > "may be sensible as counter–cyclical policies." > > That isn't everyone's reading of history, of course. What is beyond > dispute, after reading Mr. Lindsey's book, is that tax rates have a direct > effect on the health of the economy, a lesson that the current Obama > administration has chosen to ignore. > > Comment On This: > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579055323264287530.html > __________________________________________ > * > Like The Gilder Friday Letter on Facebook:* > > http://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Gilders-Friday-Letter/215657745111042?v=wall > __________________________________________ > > *Readings* / > > ABC's Monday Night Football Offers Essential Lesson In Economics > http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/09/08/abcs-monday-night-football-offers-an-essential-lesson-in-economics/ > > > > Hey GOP! Get Smart Fighting Obamacare > http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/09/04/hey-gop-get-smart-fighting-obamacare/ > > > > John Scully Just Gave His Most Detailed Account of How Steve Jobs Got > Fired From Apple > http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/09/09/john-sculley-just-gave-his-most-detailed-account-ever-of-how-steve-jobs-got-fired-from-apple/ > > > > Startup Culture is Killing Innovation > http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-do-research-when-you-can-fail-fast-pivot-and-act-out-other-popular-startup-cliches/ > > > > Wall Street Give New iPhone Thumbs Down > http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/11/wall-street-gives-apples-new-iphones-thumbs-down/ > > ________________________________ > > *ADVERTISING INFORMATION* > The Friday Letter is emailed each week to 100,000–plus subscribers and > friends of Gilder Publishing, including industry leaders, financial > professionals and individual investors. For information about advertising, > contact Diane Schmid at dschmid at forbes.com. > > *FEEDBACK AND PROBLEMS* > For technical problems, or to send letters to the editor, please e-mail > info at gilder.com. > > MAILING ADDRESS > Gilder Publishing, LLC > ATTN: Friday Letter > 291A Main Street > Great Barrington, MA 01230 > _______________________________________________ > * > The Friday Letter* is published weekly for subscribers and friends of > Gilder Publishing. If someone you know would enjoy it, please feel free to > forward a copy. > > Gilder Publishing makes the Friday Letter available for free. To help > defray some of the costs of producing this information on a weekly basis, > we will from time to time be sending you offers from companies we think > you'll be interested in. These offers will not come more than once a week. > If you do not wish to receive this related information, please opt out of > this process at the link below and we will not share your name with > companies outside of Gilder Publishing. > > To SUBSCRIBE please visit http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 > To UNSUBSCRIBE please go to: > > http://forbes-news.psmessage.com/Sub/40/0/31sbhcqKtgqfp2Kzz7zK5qpcz2zK0rizKzf7s3 > > Copyright 2013 Gilder Publishing LLC > You are receiving this email as an opted-in subscriber to Forbes > Newsletters. You are on our mailing list as: mranchord at yahoo.co.nz > > If you do not want to receive email offers from *Forbes Newsletters* in > the future, click here > . > > You may also email your opt-out request to privacyadmin at forbes.com > or send your request in the mail directly to Forbes Inc. > > Attn: Privacy Administrator 60 Fifth Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10011. > > Please click below to review our privacy policy: > http://www.forbes.com/fdc/privacy.html > > [image: Powered by Puresend] > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Fri Sep 13 18:25:41 2013 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:25:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Council of Europe Conference: Transparency to Protect Internet freedom: a Shared Commitment - Strasbourg 24-25 September 2013 In-Reply-To: <2BC8C1F8EE620E4DBF566BCF5F804CE338B4716D@V-Linguistix02.key.coe.int> References: <2BC8C1F8EE620E4DBF566BCF5F804CE338B4716D@V-Linguistix02.key.coe.int> Message-ID: <1683546995.15842.1379111142124.JavaMail.www@wwinf2220> Dear Elvana Unfortunately I will not be able to participate to this highly interesting conference (especially inmidst the PRISM/NSA scandal), because I'll take a medical cure from September 24th onwards in Southern France. Please accept my apologizes. I thank the CoE for its commitment in the important and current Internet issues and I wish you fruitful exchanges with all partners especially with CS participants. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack Chaire Unesco - Université de Strasbourg > Message du 12/09/13 11:28 > De : "THACI Elvana" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Copie à : "LAWSON James" > Objet : [governance] Council of Europe Conference: Transparency to Protect Internet freedom: a Shared Commitment - Strasbourg 24-25 September 2013 > > Dear IGC members, This email is sent out as a reminder that registration is still open for the upcoming conference on “Transparency to protect Internet freedom: a shared commitment”, Multi-stakeholder dialogue on enhanced cooperation for informed decision making which is being organised by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg from, 24-25 September 2013. Please fill in the on-line registration form if you wish to attend. Also persons having expressed their intention to attend but who have not yet filled in the form are kindly asked do so at their earliest convenience. Doing so will ease logistics on arrival as entrance to the building requires that badges are prepared in advance. Kindest regards, Elvana ~ P.S. Apologies if you receive this message more than one time. Elvana Thaçi Administrator Internet Governance Unit Information Society and Action Against Crime Directorate DG I - Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Tel. + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98 Fax. + 33 (0) 3 88 41 27 05 E-mail: elvana.thaci at coe.int Internet:http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 13 22:27:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 19:27:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Facebook bans Social Fixer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <025901ceb0f2$0658a510$1309ef30$@gmail.com> Interesting rumblings from the Kingdom of Facebook... (Worth taking a look at the comments as well... M -----Original Message----- From: unlike-us [mailto:unlike-us-bounces at listcultures.org] On Behalf Of Geert Lovink Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 4:17 AM To: unlike-us at listcultures.org Subject: Facebook bans Social Fixer http://socialfixer.com/blog/2013/09/12/beware-your-business-is-at-the-mercy- of-facebook-social-fixer-page-deleted-without-explanation/ _______________________________________________ unlike-us mailing list unlike-us at listcultures.org http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/unlike-us_listcultures.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 anupamagrawal.in at gmail.com Sat Sep 14 01:07:41 2013 From: anupamagrawal.in at gmail.com (Anupam Agrawal) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:37:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] India Joins The Super-Snooper's Club (No Legality Required) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13B8F3E8-8AA2-4024-9667-9A219690379C@gmail.com> Separate monitoring systems are being created by state and central governments. Such a great use of tax payers money. All this without a privacy law in place and in the name of national security. (No act or rules defines it). Regards Anupam Agrawal Sent from my iPad On 12-Sep-2013, at 9:18 PM, McTim wrote: > FYI, http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130910/11220224471/india-joins-super-snoopers-club-no-legality-required.shtml > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Sep 14 07:14:21 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 23:14:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> On Sep 14, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Kossi Amessinou wrote: > Dear all, > Internet is important for all people. If all of us are working > together, why the african can not have the quality of internet to use? > We pay so much money to get bad quality service. why anything can not > be doing for us? Let me know, please!! > Hi Kossi, There can be different reasons for this. If the wholesale is expensive, chances are when it is passed down through the Telcos and ISPs, it can be expensive as well. Things like liberalization of the telecommunications industry in countries coupled with healthy competition and a regulatory environment can help bring prices down for ordinary consumers. Sometimes, the lack of an Internet Exchange Point can also clog the pipes and make traffic inefficient and costly as well. A good way to have your say is to get in touch with your country's regulator of the telecommunications industry and engage in dialogue. No one country is the same as the next and each context is different. By the way, Kossi, could you please remind me of which country you are from again? Hope you are well and I hope access improves in your country. Kind Regards, Sala > 2013/9/13, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro : >> Dear All, >> >> I just found out that on the 9th September, 2013, the DC Federal Appeals >> Court heard Verizon's challenge to FCC's open internet order, see below. >> >> Wish I was in DC to have sat in to hear the saline arguments. >> >> See below for more information. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Manoj Ranchord >>> Date: September 14, 2013, 6:59:19 AM GMT+12:00 >>> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>> >>> Subject: Fw: The Gilder Friday Letter >>> >>> >>> FYI - some commentary on net neutrality. >>> >>> Ps. This is a good source for alternative view from predominant opinion. >>> >>> From: Forbes Newsletters ; >>> To: ; >>> Subject: The Gilder Friday Letter v.567.0 >>> Sent: Fri, Sep 13, 2013 1:00:34 PM >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> — THE FRIDAY LETTER — >>> (emailed weekly, from Gilder Publishing, LLC >>> for Forbes friends and subscribers) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> | http://www.gilder.com/ | Issue 568.0/September 13, 2013 >>> >>> LIKE US ON FACEBOOK >>> http://www.facebook.com/#!/GilderFridayLetter >>> >>> HEADLINES: >>> >>> - The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>> - Friday Feature / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>> - Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited >>> - Readings / >>> >>> Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of >>> Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World >>> >>> Ronald Reagan's most–quoted living author—George Gilder—is back with an >>> all–new paradigm–shifting theory of capitalism that will upturn >>> conventional wisdom, just when our economy desperately needs a new >>> direction. >>> >>> ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY >>> http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=%20gilderpublish-20 >>> >>> The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>> >>> BRET SWANSON, Maximum Entropy (09/09/13): Today the D.C. Federal Appeals >>> Court hears Verizon's challenge to the Federal Communications Commission's >>> "Open Internet Order" — better known as "net neutrality." >>> >>> Hard to believe, but we've been arguing over net neutrality for a decade. >>> I just pulled up some testimony George Gilder and I prepared for a Senate >>> Commerce Committee hearing in April 2004. In it, we asserted that a newish >>> "horizontal layers" regulatory proposal, then circulating among comm–law >>> policy wonks, would become the next big tech policy battlefield. >>> Horizontal layers became net neutrality, the Bush FCC adopted the >>> non-binding Four Principles of an open Internet in 2005, the Obama FCC >>> pushed through actual regulations in 2010, and now today's court >>> challenge, which argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate the >>> Internet and that, in fact, Congress told the FCC not to regulate the >>> Internet. >>> >>> Over the years we've followed the debate, and often weighed in. Here's a >>> sampling of our articles, reports, reply comments, and even some >>> doggerel: >>> >>> "CBS–Time Warner Cable Spat Shows (Once Again) Why 'Net Neutrality' Won't >>> Work" – by Bret Swanson – August 9, 2013 >>> >>> "Verizon, ESPN, and the Future of Broadband" – by Bret Swanson – >>> Forbes.com – June 4, 2013 >>> >>> "The Internet Survives, and Thrives, For Now" – by Bret Swanson – >>> RealClearMarkets – December 6, 2010 >>> >>> "Reply Comments to the FCC's Open Internet Further Inquiry" – by Bret >>> Swanson – November 4, 2010 >>> >>> "Net Neutrality, Investment, and Jobs: Assessing the Potential Impact on >>> the Broadband Ecosystem" – by Charles M. Davidson and Bret T. Swanson, >>> Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute, New York Law School, >>> June 16, 2010 >>> >>> "Reply Comments in the FCC Matter of 'Preserving the Open Internet'" – by >>> Bret Swanson – April 26, 2010 >>> >>> "What Would Net Neutrality Mean for U.S. Jobs?" – by Bret Swanson – >>> February 5, 2010 >>> >>> "Net Neutrality's Impact on Internet Innovation" – prepared for the New >>> York City Council – by Bret Swanson – November 20, 2009 >>> >>> "Google and the Problem With 'Net Neutrality'" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall >>> Street Journal, October 5, 2009 >>> >>> "Leviathan Spam" – by Bret Swanson – A whimsical take on "Net Neutrality" >>> – September 23, 2009 >>> >>> "Unleashing the 'Exaflood'" – by Bret Swanson and George Gilder, The Wall >>> Street Journal, February 22, 2008 >>> >>> "The Coming Exaflood" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, January >>> 20, 2007 >>> >>> "Let There Be Bandwidth" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, March >>> 7, 2006 >>> >>> "Testimony For Telecommunications Policy: A Look Ahead" – testimony before >>> the Senate Commerce Committee – by George Gilder – April 28, 2004 >>> >>> More from Bret Swanson: >>> http://www.bretswanson.com/ >>> >>> REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: >>> http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>> >>> >>> WEALTH & POVERTY: A New Edition for the 21st Century >>> >>> The New York Times bestseller Wealth and Poverty by George Gilder is one >>> of the most famous economic books of all time and has sold more than one >>> million copies since its first release. >>> >>> In the new, completely updated, edition, Gilder compares America's current >>> economic challenges with her past economic problems, and explains why >>> Obama's big–government, redistributive policies are doing more harm than >>> good. Wealth and Poverty (2012) offers solutions to America's current >>> economic problems and hope to those who fear that our best days are behind >>> us. >>> >>> Order Your Copy Today! >>> >>> Friday Feature /Israeli Companies Are On Sale >>> >>> Gilder Telecosm Forum MEMBER (09/09/13): George, Please give us a >>> futurist's view of what we should be investing in. Thanks in advance for >>> your reply. >>> >>> GEORGE GILDER, Gilder Telecosm Forum (09/10/13): I'll work on it, though >>> my noggin is mostly full of information theory these days. The environment >>> for small and mid–sized tech is ferocious. Now that the EPA has >>> effectively banned nanotech, regarding carbon nanotubes as a new form of >>> asbestos, and network neutrality threatens the Internet, I might have to >>> resort to biotech, as long as it remains legal (genetic modification, >>> eek!). >>> >>> Meanwhile, I'll make do with my usual suspects, most of which you can buy >>> more cheaply than ever. I would particularly note that great Israeli >>> companies such as the cloud security paragon RADW are on sale. EZCH is >>> still the best semiconductor company in the world and an even better stock >>> because it remains widely unrecognized; TSEM is still the best analog play >>> and also even cheaper despite its increasingly stable finances; CGEN is no >>> longer in the bargain basement but is worth a bet; EVGN.TA remains >>> attractive; INTC is an Israeli company in disguise and is on sale despite >>> its world leading fabs and attractive Moore's Law double dividends; AMD >>> spearheads graphics processors and will gain with clouds; ADSK seems well >>> valued but it is the leader in 3D CAD and moving into the cloud with ever >>> ascendant and unique software from Otoy; and AUDC is now better valued but >>> it is a survivor at layer–five at a time when everything is becoming >>> sessions… >>> >>> Read more posts by George Gilder and the Telecosm Forum members by logging >>> on to the Gilder Telecosm Forum with your subscriber password at >>> www.gildertech.com. >>> >>> REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: >>> http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>> >>> >>> The Israel Test: Why the World's Most Besieged State >>> is a Beacon of Freedom and Hope for the World Economy >>> >>> Have you ever wondered why, in our time, it is the Left that leads the >>> attack on Israel? After reading The Israel Test you will never wonder >>> again. George Gilder's brilliant work definitively shows how America's >>> ability and desire to defend Israel will define our survival as a nation: >>> "If Israel is destroyed, capitalist Europe will likely die as well, and >>> America, as the epitome of productive and creative capitalism spurred by >>> Jews, will be in jeopardy." >>> >>> ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY [Now in Paperback!] >>> Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited >>> >>> STEPHEN MOORE, Wall Street Journal Book Review of "The Growth Experiment >>> Revisited", By Lawrence Lindsey (09/09/13): When Ronald Reagan endorsed >>> the idea of supply–side tax cuts in 1981, he turned 50 years of economic >>> orthodoxy on its head. Even Republicans like Sen. Howard Baker of >>> Tennessee, who voted for the cuts, called it "a riverboat gamble." What >>> followed was a quarter–century of nearly unprecedented wealth creation and >>> technological progress. America's net worth exploded by nearly $40 >>> trillion in these years, and nearly 40 million Americans were added to >>> business payrolls. >>> >>> Now, in the wake of the great recession of 2008–09 and the fifth year of >>> the most meager of Keynesian "recoveries," it is a good time to re–explore >>> how supply–side policies set America on the prosperity path in the go–go >>> years of the 1980s and '90s. This is what Lawrence Lindsey's "The Growth >>> Experiment Revisited" sets out to do. >>> >>> The 1980s boom was launched on the simple insight that, by lowering tax >>> rates and regulatory hurdles and juicing the incentives to produce, >>> innovate and take risks, the animal spirits of the American >>> free–enterprise system would revive. Two seminal books hatched the >>> supply–side revolution. The first was Jude Wanniski's "The Way the World >>> Works" (1978); the second, George Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty" (1981). >>> >>> Almost as influential, coming a few years later, was Lawrence Lindsey's >>> "The Growth Experiment" (1990). Slightly academic in nature, it was the >>> first book to quantify the economic and revenue windfall of the 1981 >>> Reagan across–the–board tax cuts. Mr. Lindsey's conclusion was that >>> Reagan's 1981 tax act quickened the pace of production, which reduced the >>> predicted revenue loss. His research found that although the Reagan tax >>> cuts didn't "pay for themselves," the ones at the highest end of the >>> income spectrum "did produce a revenue gain" because of "changes in >>> taxpayer behavior." He concluded that "the core supply–side tenet—that tax >>> rates powerfully affect the willingness of taxpayers to work, save and >>> invest, and thereby also affect the health of the economy—won as stunning >>> a vindication as has been seen in at least a half–century of economics." >>> >>> He has now updated his book, taking us through the booms and busts of the >>> past 20 years. It is a valuable project in part because Mr. Lindsey was a >>> front–seat economic adviser to George W. Bush, serving as director of the >>> National Economic Council and as one of the architects of the >>> often–maligned 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. >>> >>> Mr. Lindsey's central claim is that those tax changes saved the economy >>> from the undertow of the financial meltdown at the end of the Clinton >>> presidency. The bursting of the high–tech bubble in 1999–2000, which tends >>> to be forgotten, was followed by the turmoil and economic upheaval after >>> 9/11. Mr. Lindsey makes a convincing case that Mr. Bush doesn't receive >>> nearly the credit he deserves for steering the economy clear of a >>> mini–depression in the early 2000s. The economic revival of 2003–07 wasn't >>> particularly speedy, but it looks impressive today when compared with the >>> dismal results of Obamanomics. >>> >>> The purpose of the tax cuts, Mr. Lindsey writes, was "to provide a cushion >>> for the economy when the bubble burst." They were designed as an >>> "insurance policy" against a downturn. The author says that he was driven >>> by a lesson, impressed upon him by then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan >>> Greenspan, not to repeat the policy mistakes after the 1929 stock market >>> crash, when taxes and tariffs were raised in 1930 and 1931. They only >>> exacerbated the length and severity of the Depression. >>> >>> Mr. Lindsey writes that the Bush tax cut in 2001 was "a standard Keynesian >>> remedy for a recession" but "with a supply–side twist," and that it helped >>> avert a deeper recession. "The economy began to recover as soon as the >>> tax–cut checks hit," he insists. Those policies consisted mainly of tax >>> rebates, credits and a slow phase–down of rates (to a 35% maximum). On the >>> opinion pages of this newspaper we have questioned the bang–for–the–buck >>> quality of the 2001 tax package, arguing that, contrary to Mr. Lindsey's >>> claim, the rebates and credits bumped up consumption in only a minor and >>> temporary way and that what was needed was permanent tax–rate reductions >>> to encourage investment and work. It is true that the economy revived in >>> 2001 and 2002, but only haltingly. >>> >>> The real economic sparkplug was the 2003 investment–tax cut, which lowered >>> the rate on capital gains and dividends. Not only did growth accelerate, >>> but stocks rose in value—as Mr. Lindsey had predicted—and revenues to the >>> federal government exploded by nearly $800 billion until 2008, when the >>> bursting of the housing bubble sent the economy into the intensive–care >>> unit. >>> >>> For all the moaning about growing deficits under Mr. Bush, Mr. Lindsey >>> defends the record of the president he worked for: The cumulative debt >>> during Mr. Bush's two terms, he notes, added $2 trillion—or less than the >>> amount Barack Obama borrowed in his first two years in office. This is >>> true, though it ignores the fact that Mr. Bush left behind a deficit that >>> was headed to $1 trillion in 2009 no matter who became president. Mr. >>> Lindsey sees vindication in Mr. Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax >>> cuts for everyone in 2011 and for "99 percent of all taxpayers" in 2013. >>> >>> The puzzle of Mr. Lindsey is that one of the most prominent defenders of >>> supply–side economics and lower tax rates is also a disciple of >>> demand–side economics: He believes that, in times of recession, Keynesian >>> fiscal policies designed to increase overall demand will help steer an >>> economy back on the growth path. Both tax cuts and spending increases, he >>> says, "may be sensible as counter–cyclical policies." >>> >>> That isn't everyone's reading of history, of course. What is beyond >>> dispute, after reading Mr. Lindsey's book, is that tax rates have a direct >>> effect on the health of the economy, a lesson that the current Obama >>> administration has chosen to ignore. >>> >>> Comment On This: >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579055323264287530.html >>> __________________________________________ >>> >>> Like The Gilder Friday Letter on Facebook: >>> http://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Gilders-Friday-Letter/215657745111042?v=wall >>> __________________________________________ >>> >>> Readings / >>> >>> ABC's Monday Night Football Offers Essential Lesson In Economics >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/09/08/abcs-monday-night-football-offers-an-essential-lesson-in-economics/ >>> >>> >>> Hey GOP! Get Smart Fighting Obamacare >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/09/04/hey-gop-get-smart-fighting-obamacare/ >>> >>> >>> John Scully Just Gave His Most Detailed Account of How Steve Jobs Got >>> Fired From Apple >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/09/09/john-sculley-just-gave-his-most-detailed-account-ever-of-how-steve-jobs-got-fired-from-apple/ >>> >>> >>> Startup Culture is Killing Innovation >>> http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-do-research-when-you-can-fail-fast-pivot-and-act-out-other-popular-startup-cliches/ >>> >>> >>> Wall Street Give New iPhone Thumbs Down >>> http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/11/wall-street-gives-apples-new-iphones-thumbs-down/ >>> ________________________________ >>> ADVERTISING INFORMATION >>> The Friday Letter is emailed each week to 100,000–plus subscribers and >>> friends of Gilder Publishing, including industry leaders, financial >>> professionals and individual investors. For information about advertising, >>> contact Diane Schmid at dschmid at forbes.com. >>> >>> FEEDBACK AND PROBLEMS >>> For technical problems, or to send letters to the editor, please e-mail >>> info at gilder.com. >>> >>> MAILING ADDRESS >>> Gilder Publishing, LLC >>> ATTN: Friday Letter >>> 291A Main Street >>> Great Barrington, MA 01230 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> The Friday Letter is published weekly for subscribers and friends of >>> Gilder Publishing. If someone you know would enjoy it, please feel free to >>> forward a copy. >>> >>> Gilder Publishing makes the Friday Letter available for free. To help >>> defray some of the costs of producing this information on a weekly basis, >>> we will from time to time be sending you offers from companies we think >>> you'll be interested in. These offers will not come more than once a week. >>> If you do not wish to receive this related information, please opt out of >>> this process at the link below and we will not share your name with >>> companies outside of Gilder Publishing. >>> >>> To SUBSCRIBE please visit http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>> To UNSUBSCRIBE please go to: >>> http://forbes-news.psmessage.com/Sub/40/0/31sbhcqKtgqfp2Kzz7zK5qpcz2zK0rizKzf7s3 >>> >>> >>> Copyright 2013 Gilder Publishing LLC >>> >>> You are receiving this email as an opted-in subscriber to Forbes >>> Newsletters. You are on our mailing list as: mranchord at yahoo.co.nz >>> >>> If you do not want to receive email offers from Forbes Newsletters in the >>> future, click here. >>> >>> You may also email your opt-out request to privacyadmin at forbes.com >>> or send your request in the mail directly to Forbes Inc. >>> >>> Attn: Privacy Administrator 60 Fifth Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10011. >>> >>> Please click below to review our privacy policy: >>> http://www.forbes.com/fdc/privacy.html >> > > > -- > AMESSINOU Kossi > Ingénieur TIC > ICT Engineer > Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 > skype: amessinou > @amessinou @bigf > http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi > www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou > Que Dieu vous bénisse > Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la > gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 14 07:59:00 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 23:59:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sep 14, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Kossi Amessinou wrote: > Dear salanieta, > Thank you for your message. I am from Benin. Hi Kossi - let me know if you know Yaovi Atohoun (Benin) who is very involved in ICT in your country. Happy to introduce you offline. > > 2013/9/14, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro : >> >> >> On Sep 14, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Kossi Amessinou >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> Internet is important for all people. If all of us are working >>> together, why the african can not have the quality of internet to use? >>> We pay so much money to get bad quality service. why anything can not >>> be doing for us? Let me know, please!! >>> >> Hi Kossi, >> >> There can be different reasons for this. If the wholesale is expensive, >> chances are when it is passed down through the Telcos and ISPs, it can be >> expensive as well. Things like liberalization of the telecommunications >> industry in countries coupled with healthy competition and a regulatory >> environment can help bring prices down for ordinary consumers. Sometimes, >> the lack of an Internet Exchange Point can also clog the pipes and make >> traffic inefficient and costly as well. >> >> A good way to have your say is to get in touch with your country's regulator >> of the telecommunications industry and engage in dialogue. No one country is >> the same as the next and each context is different. >> >> By the way, Kossi, could you please remind me of which country you are from >> again? Hope you are well and I hope access improves in your country. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >>> 2013/9/13, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> : >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> I just found out that on the 9th September, 2013, the DC Federal Appeals >>>> Court heard Verizon's challenge to FCC's open internet order, see below. >>>> >>>> Wish I was in DC to have sat in to hear the saline arguments. >>>> >>>> See below for more information. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>>> From: Manoj Ranchord >>>>> Date: September 14, 2013, 6:59:19 AM GMT+12:00 >>>>> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Fw: The Gilder Friday Letter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FYI - some commentary on net neutrality. >>>>> >>>>> Ps. This is a good source for alternative view from predominant >>>>> opinion. >>>>> >>>>> From: Forbes Newsletters ; >>>>> To: ; >>>>> Subject: The Gilder Friday Letter v.567.0 >>>>> Sent: Fri, Sep 13, 2013 1:00:34 PM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> — THE FRIDAY LETTER — >>>>> (emailed weekly, from Gilder Publishing, LLC >>>>> for Forbes friends and subscribers) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> | http://www.gilder.com/ | Issue 568.0/September 13, 2013 >>>>> >>>>> LIKE US ON FACEBOOK >>>>> http://www.facebook.com/#!/GilderFridayLetter >>>>> >>>>> HEADLINES: >>>>> >>>>> - The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>>>> - Friday Feature / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>>>> - Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited >>>>> - Readings / >>>>> >>>>> Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of >>>>> Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World >>>>> >>>>> Ronald Reagan's most–quoted living author—George Gilder—is back with an >>>>> all–new paradigm–shifting theory of capitalism that will upturn >>>>> conventional wisdom, just when our economy desperately needs a new >>>>> direction. >>>>> >>>>> ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY >>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=%20gilderpublish-20 >>>>> >>>>> The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>>>> >>>>> BRET SWANSON, Maximum Entropy (09/09/13): Today the D.C. Federal >>>>> Appeals >>>>> Court hears Verizon's challenge to the Federal Communications >>>>> Commission's >>>>> "Open Internet Order" — better known as "net neutrality." >>>>> >>>>> Hard to believe, but we've been arguing over net neutrality for a >>>>> decade. >>>>> I just pulled up some testimony George Gilder and I prepared for a >>>>> Senate >>>>> Commerce Committee hearing in April 2004. In it, we asserted that a >>>>> newish >>>>> "horizontal layers" regulatory proposal, then circulating among >>>>> comm–law >>>>> policy wonks, would become the next big tech policy battlefield. >>>>> Horizontal layers became net neutrality, the Bush FCC adopted the >>>>> non-binding Four Principles of an open Internet in 2005, the Obama FCC >>>>> pushed through actual regulations in 2010, and now today's court >>>>> challenge, which argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate the >>>>> Internet and that, in fact, Congress told the FCC not to regulate the >>>>> Internet. >>>>> >>>>> Over the years we've followed the debate, and often weighed in. Here's >>>>> a >>>>> sampling of our articles, reports, reply comments, and even some >>>>> doggerel: >>>>> >>>>> "CBS–Time Warner Cable Spat Shows (Once Again) Why 'Net Neutrality' >>>>> Won't >>>>> Work" – by Bret Swanson – August 9, 2013 >>>>> >>>>> "Verizon, ESPN, and the Future of Broadband" – by Bret Swanson – >>>>> Forbes.com – June 4, 2013 >>>>> >>>>> "The Internet Survives, and Thrives, For Now" – by Bret Swanson – >>>>> RealClearMarkets – December 6, 2010 >>>>> >>>>> "Reply Comments to the FCC's Open Internet Further Inquiry" – by Bret >>>>> Swanson – November 4, 2010 >>>>> >>>>> "Net Neutrality, Investment, and Jobs: Assessing the Potential Impact >>>>> on >>>>> the Broadband Ecosystem" – by Charles M. Davidson and Bret T. Swanson, >>>>> Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute, New York Law School, >>>>> June 16, 2010 >>>>> >>>>> "Reply Comments in the FCC Matter of 'Preserving the Open Internet'" – >>>>> by >>>>> Bret Swanson – April 26, 2010 >>>>> >>>>> "What Would Net Neutrality Mean for U.S. Jobs?" – by Bret Swanson – >>>>> February 5, 2010 >>>>> >>>>> "Net Neutrality's Impact on Internet Innovation" – prepared for the New >>>>> York City Council – by Bret Swanson – November 20, 2009 >>>>> >>>>> "Google and the Problem With 'Net Neutrality'" – by Bret Swanson, The >>>>> Wall >>>>> Street Journal, October 5, 2009 >>>>> >>>>> "Leviathan Spam" – by Bret Swanson – A whimsical take on "Net >>>>> Neutrality" >>>>> – September 23, 2009 >>>>> >>>>> "Unleashing the 'Exaflood'" – by Bret Swanson and George Gilder, The >>>>> Wall >>>>> Street Journal, February 22, 2008 >>>>> >>>>> "The Coming Exaflood" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, >>>>> January >>>>> 20, 2007 >>>>> >>>>> "Let There Be Bandwidth" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, >>>>> March >>>>> 7, 2006 >>>>> >>>>> "Testimony For Telecommunications Policy: A Look Ahead" – testimony >>>>> before >>>>> the Senate Commerce Committee – by George Gilder – April 28, 2004 >>>>> >>>>> More from Bret Swanson: >>>>> http://www.bretswanson.com/ >>>>> >>>>> REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: >>>>> http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WEALTH & POVERTY: A New Edition for the 21st Century >>>>> >>>>> The New York Times bestseller Wealth and Poverty by George Gilder is >>>>> one >>>>> of the most famous economic books of all time and has sold more than >>>>> one >>>>> million copies since its first release. >>>>> >>>>> In the new, completely updated, edition, Gilder compares America's >>>>> current >>>>> economic challenges with her past economic problems, and explains why >>>>> Obama's big–government, redistributive policies are doing more harm >>>>> than >>>>> good. Wealth and Poverty (2012) offers solutions to America's current >>>>> economic problems and hope to those who fear that our best days are >>>>> behind >>>>> us. >>>>> >>>>> Order Your Copy Today! >>>>> >>>>> Friday Feature /Israeli Companies Are On Sale >>>>> >>>>> Gilder Telecosm Forum MEMBER (09/09/13): George, Please give us a >>>>> futurist's view of what we should be investing in. Thanks in advance >>>>> for >>>>> your reply. >>>>> >>>>> GEORGE GILDER, Gilder Telecosm Forum (09/10/13): I'll work on it, >>>>> though >>>>> my noggin is mostly full of information theory these days. The >>>>> environment >>>>> for small and mid–sized tech is ferocious. Now that the EPA has >>>>> effectively banned nanotech, regarding carbon nanotubes as a new form >>>>> of >>>>> asbestos, and network neutrality threatens the Internet, I might have >>>>> to >>>>> resort to biotech, as long as it remains legal (genetic modification, >>>>> eek!). >>>>> >>>>> Meanwhile, I'll make do with my usual suspects, most of which you can >>>>> buy >>>>> more cheaply than ever. I would particularly note that great Israeli >>>>> companies such as the cloud security paragon RADW are on sale. EZCH is >>>>> still the best semiconductor company in the world and an even better >>>>> stock >>>>> because it remains widely unrecognized; TSEM is still the best analog >>>>> play >>>>> and also even cheaper despite its increasingly stable finances; CGEN is >>>>> no >>>>> longer in the bargain basement but is worth a bet; EVGN.TA remains >>>>> attractive; INTC is an Israeli company in disguise and is on sale >>>>> despite >>>>> its world leading fabs and attractive Moore's Law double dividends; AMD >>>>> spearheads graphics processors and will gain with clouds; ADSK seems >>>>> well >>>>> valued but it is the leader in 3D CAD and moving into the cloud with >>>>> ever >>>>> ascendant and unique software from Otoy; and AUDC is now better valued >>>>> but >>>>> it is a survivor at layer–five at a time when everything is becoming >>>>> sessions… >>>>> >>>>> Read more posts by George Gilder and the Telecosm Forum members by >>>>> logging >>>>> on to the Gilder Telecosm Forum with your subscriber password at >>>>> www.gildertech.com. >>>>> >>>>> REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: >>>>> http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Israel Test: Why the World's Most Besieged State >>>>> is a Beacon of Freedom and Hope for the World Economy >>>>> >>>>> Have you ever wondered why, in our time, it is the Left that leads the >>>>> attack on Israel? After reading The Israel Test you will never wonder >>>>> again. George Gilder's brilliant work definitively shows how America's >>>>> ability and desire to defend Israel will define our survival as a >>>>> nation: >>>>> "If Israel is destroyed, capitalist Europe will likely die as well, and >>>>> America, as the epitome of productive and creative capitalism spurred >>>>> by >>>>> Jews, will be in jeopardy." >>>>> >>>>> ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY [Now in Paperback!] >>>>> Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited >>>>> >>>>> STEPHEN MOORE, Wall Street Journal Book Review of "The Growth >>>>> Experiment >>>>> Revisited", By Lawrence Lindsey (09/09/13): When Ronald Reagan endorsed >>>>> the idea of supply–side tax cuts in 1981, he turned 50 years of >>>>> economic >>>>> orthodoxy on its head. Even Republicans like Sen. Howard Baker of >>>>> Tennessee, who voted for the cuts, called it "a riverboat gamble." What >>>>> followed was a quarter–century of nearly unprecedented wealth creation >>>>> and >>>>> technological progress. America's net worth exploded by nearly $40 >>>>> trillion in these years, and nearly 40 million Americans were added to >>>>> business payrolls. >>>>> >>>>> Now, in the wake of the great recession of 2008–09 and the fifth year >>>>> of >>>>> the most meager of Keynesian "recoveries," it is a good time to >>>>> re–explore >>>>> how supply–side policies set America on the prosperity path in the >>>>> go–go >>>>> years of the 1980s and '90s. This is what Lawrence Lindsey's "The >>>>> Growth >>>>> Experiment Revisited" sets out to do. >>>>> >>>>> The 1980s boom was launched on the simple insight that, by lowering tax >>>>> rates and regulatory hurdles and juicing the incentives to produce, >>>>> innovate and take risks, the animal spirits of the American >>>>> free–enterprise system would revive. Two seminal books hatched the >>>>> supply–side revolution. The first was Jude Wanniski's "The Way the >>>>> World >>>>> Works" (1978); the second, George Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty" (1981). >>>>> >>>>> Almost as influential, coming a few years later, was Lawrence Lindsey's >>>>> "The Growth Experiment" (1990). Slightly academic in nature, it was the >>>>> first book to quantify the economic and revenue windfall of the 1981 >>>>> Reagan across–the–board tax cuts. Mr. Lindsey's conclusion was that >>>>> Reagan's 1981 tax act quickened the pace of production, which reduced >>>>> the >>>>> predicted revenue loss. His research found that although the Reagan tax >>>>> cuts didn't "pay for themselves," the ones at the highest end of the >>>>> income spectrum "did produce a revenue gain" because of "changes in >>>>> taxpayer behavior." He concluded that "the core supply–side tenet—that >>>>> tax >>>>> rates powerfully affect the willingness of taxpayers to work, save and >>>>> invest, and thereby also affect the health of the economy—won as >>>>> stunning >>>>> a vindication as has been seen in at least a half–century of >>>>> economics." >>>>> >>>>> He has now updated his book, taking us through the booms and busts of >>>>> the >>>>> past 20 years. It is a valuable project in part because Mr. Lindsey was >>>>> a >>>>> front–seat economic adviser to George W. Bush, serving as director of >>>>> the >>>>> National Economic Council and as one of the architects of the >>>>> often–maligned 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. >>>>> >>>>> Mr. Lindsey's central claim is that those tax changes saved the economy >>>>> from the undertow of the financial meltdown at the end of the Clinton >>>>> presidency. The bursting of the high–tech bubble in 1999–2000, which >>>>> tends >>>>> to be forgotten, was followed by the turmoil and economic upheaval >>>>> after >>>>> 9/11. Mr. Lindsey makes a convincing case that Mr. Bush doesn't receive >>>>> nearly the credit he deserves for steering the economy clear of a >>>>> mini–depression in the early 2000s. The economic revival of 2003–07 >>>>> wasn't >>>>> particularly speedy, but it looks impressive today when compared with >>>>> the >>>>> dismal results of Obamanomics. >>>>> >>>>> The purpose of the tax cuts, Mr. Lindsey writes, was "to provide a >>>>> cushion >>>>> for the economy when the bubble burst." They were designed as an >>>>> "insurance policy" against a downturn. The author says that he was >>>>> driven >>>>> by a lesson, impressed upon him by then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan >>>>> Greenspan, not to repeat the policy mistakes after the 1929 stock >>>>> market >>>>> crash, when taxes and tariffs were raised in 1930 and 1931. They only >>>>> exacerbated the length and severity of the Depression. >>>>> >>>>> Mr. Lindsey writes that the Bush tax cut in 2001 was "a standard >>>>> Keynesian >>>>> remedy for a recession" but "with a supply–side twist," and that it >>>>> helped >>>>> avert a deeper recession. "The economy began to recover as soon as the >>>>> tax–cut checks hit," he insists. Those policies consisted mainly of tax >>>>> rebates, credits and a slow phase–down of rates (to a 35% maximum). On >>>>> the >>>>> opinion pages of this newspaper we have questioned the >>>>> bang–for–the–buck >>>>> quality of the 2001 tax package, arguing that, contrary to Mr. >>>>> Lindsey's >>>>> claim, the rebates and credits bumped up consumption in only a minor >>>>> and >>>>> temporary way and that what was needed was permanent tax–rate >>>>> reductions >>>>> to encourage investment and work. It is true that the economy revived >>>>> in >>>>> 2001 and 2002, but only haltingly. >>>>> >>>>> The real economic sparkplug was the 2003 investment–tax cut, which >>>>> lowered >>>>> the rate on capital gains and dividends. Not only did growth >>>>> accelerate, >>>>> but stocks rose in value—as Mr. Lindsey had predicted—and revenues to >>>>> the >>>>> federal government exploded by nearly $800 billion until 2008, when the >>>>> bursting of the housing bubble sent the economy into the intensive–care >>>>> unit. >>>>> >>>>> For all the moaning about growing deficits under Mr. Bush, Mr. Lindsey >>>>> defends the record of the president he worked for: The cumulative debt >>>>> during Mr. Bush's two terms, he notes, added $2 trillion—or less than >>>>> the >>>>> amount Barack Obama borrowed in his first two years in office. This is >>>>> true, though it ignores the fact that Mr. Bush left behind a deficit >>>>> that >>>>> was headed to $1 trillion in 2009 no matter who became president. Mr. >>>>> Lindsey sees vindication in Mr. Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax >>>>> cuts for everyone in 2011 and for "99 percent of all taxpayers" in >>>>> 2013. >>>>> >>>>> The puzzle of Mr. Lindsey is that one of the most prominent defenders >>>>> of >>>>> supply–side economics and lower tax rates is also a disciple of >>>>> demand–side economics: He believes that, in times of recession, >>>>> Keynesian >>>>> fiscal policies designed to increase overall demand will help steer an >>>>> economy back on the growth path. Both tax cuts and spending increases, >>>>> he >>>>> says, "may be sensible as counter–cyclical policies." >>>>> >>>>> That isn't everyone's reading of history, of course. What is beyond >>>>> dispute, after reading Mr. Lindsey's book, is that tax rates have a >>>>> direct >>>>> effect on the health of the economy, a lesson that the current Obama >>>>> administration has chosen to ignore. >>>>> >>>>> Comment On This: >>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579055323264287530.html >>>>> __________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Like The Gilder Friday Letter on Facebook: >>>>> http://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Gilders-Friday-Letter/215657745111042?v=wall >>>>> __________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> Readings / >>>>> >>>>> ABC's Monday Night Football Offers Essential Lesson In Economics >>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/09/08/abcs-monday-night-football-offers-an-essential-lesson-in-economics/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hey GOP! Get Smart Fighting Obamacare >>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/09/04/hey-gop-get-smart-fighting-obamacare/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Scully Just Gave His Most Detailed Account of How Steve Jobs Got >>>>> Fired From Apple >>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/09/09/john-sculley-just-gave-his-most-detailed-account-ever-of-how-steve-jobs-got-fired-from-apple/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Startup Culture is Killing Innovation >>>>> http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-do-research-when-you-can-fail-fast-pivot-and-act-out-other-popular-startup-cliches/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wall Street Give New iPhone Thumbs Down >>>>> http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/11/wall-street-gives-apples-new-iphones-thumbs-down/ >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> ADVERTISING INFORMATION >>>>> The Friday Letter is emailed each week to 100,000–plus subscribers and >>>>> friends of Gilder Publishing, including industry leaders, financial >>>>> professionals and individual investors. For information about >>>>> advertising, >>>>> contact Diane Schmid at dschmid at forbes.com. >>>>> >>>>> FEEDBACK AND PROBLEMS >>>>> For technical problems, or to send letters to the editor, please e-mail >>>>> info at gilder.com. >>>>> >>>>> MAILING ADDRESS >>>>> Gilder Publishing, LLC >>>>> ATTN: Friday Letter >>>>> 291A Main Street >>>>> Great Barrington, MA 01230 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> The Friday Letter is published weekly for subscribers and friends of >>>>> Gilder Publishing. If someone you know would enjoy it, please feel free >>>>> to >>>>> forward a copy. >>>>> >>>>> Gilder Publishing makes the Friday Letter available for free. To help >>>>> defray some of the costs of producing this information on a weekly >>>>> basis, >>>>> we will from time to time be sending you offers from companies we think >>>>> you'll be interested in. These offers will not come more than once a >>>>> week. >>>>> If you do not wish to receive this related information, please opt out >>>>> of >>>>> this process at the link below and we will not share your name with >>>>> companies outside of Gilder Publishing. >>>>> >>>>> To SUBSCRIBE please visit http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE please go to: >>>>> http://forbes-news.psmessage.com/Sub/40/0/31sbhcqKtgqfp2Kzz7zK5qpcz2zK0rizKzf7s3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Copyright 2013 Gilder Publishing LLC >>>>> >>>>> You are receiving this email as an opted-in subscriber to Forbes >>>>> Newsletters. You are on our mailing list as: mranchord at yahoo.co.nz >>>>> >>>>> If you do not want to receive email offers from Forbes Newsletters in >>>>> the >>>>> future, click here. >>>>> >>>>> You may also email your opt-out request to privacyadmin at forbes.com >>>>> or send your request in the mail directly to Forbes Inc. >>>>> >>>>> Attn: Privacy Administrator 60 Fifth Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10011. >>>>> >>>>> Please click below to review our privacy policy: >>>>> http://www.forbes.com/fdc/privacy.html >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> AMESSINOU Kossi >>> Ingénieur TIC >>> ICT Engineer >>> Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 >>> skype: amessinou >>> @amessinou @bigf >>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi >>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>> Que Dieu vous bénisse >>> Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la >>> gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. >> > > > -- > AMESSINOU Kossi > Ingénieur TIC > ICT Engineer > Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 > skype: amessinou > @amessinou @bigf > http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi > www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou > Que Dieu vous bénisse > Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la > gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Sep 14 10:37:28 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 23:37:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7BCDD9A1-0B18-4DCE-A2D6-1970965DD103@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Sala, Yaovi recently joined ICANN . I've worked with him on a couple of committees, he's a very smart guy, ICANN's lucky to get him. Adam On Sep 14, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Sep 14, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Kossi Amessinou wrote: > >> Dear salanieta, >> Thank you for your message. I am from Benin. > > Hi Kossi - let me know if you know Yaovi Atohoun (Benin) who is very involved in ICT in your country. Happy to introduce you offline. >> >> 2013/9/14, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro : >>> >>> >>> On Sep 14, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Kossi Amessinou >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> Internet is important for all people. If all of us are working >>>> together, why the african can not have the quality of internet to use? >>>> We pay so much money to get bad quality service. why anything can not >>>> be doing for us? Let me know, please!! >>>> >>> Hi Kossi, >>> >>> There can be different reasons for this. If the wholesale is expensive, >>> chances are when it is passed down through the Telcos and ISPs, it can be >>> expensive as well. Things like liberalization of the telecommunications >>> industry in countries coupled with healthy competition and a regulatory >>> environment can help bring prices down for ordinary consumers. Sometimes, >>> the lack of an Internet Exchange Point can also clog the pipes and make >>> traffic inefficient and costly as well. >>> >>> A good way to have your say is to get in touch with your country's regulator >>> of the telecommunications industry and engage in dialogue. No one country is >>> the same as the next and each context is different. >>> >>> By the way, Kossi, could you please remind me of which country you are from >>> again? Hope you are well and I hope access improves in your country. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>>> 2013/9/13, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> : >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> I just found out that on the 9th September, 2013, the DC Federal Appeals >>>>> Court heard Verizon's challenge to FCC's open internet order, see below. >>>>> >>>>> Wish I was in DC to have sat in to hear the saline arguments. >>>>> >>>>> See below for more information. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Manoj Ranchord >>>>>> Date: September 14, 2013, 6:59:19 AM GMT+12:00 >>>>>> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Fw: The Gilder Friday Letter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> FYI - some commentary on net neutrality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ps. This is a good source for alternative view from predominant >>>>>> opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Forbes Newsletters ; >>>>>> To: ; >>>>>> Subject: The Gilder Friday Letter v.567.0 >>>>>> Sent: Fri, Sep 13, 2013 1:00:34 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> — THE FRIDAY LETTER — >>>>>> (emailed weekly, from Gilder Publishing, LLC >>>>>> for Forbes friends and subscribers) >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> | http://www.gilder.com/ | Issue 568.0/September 13, 2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> LIKE US ON FACEBOOK >>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/#!/GilderFridayLetter >>>>>> >>>>>> HEADLINES: >>>>>> >>>>>> - The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>>>>> - Friday Feature / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>>>>> - Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited >>>>>> - Readings / >>>>>> >>>>>> Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of >>>>>> Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World >>>>>> >>>>>> Ronald Reagan's most–quoted living author—George Gilder—is back with an >>>>>> all–new paradigm–shifting theory of capitalism that will upturn >>>>>> conventional wisdom, just when our economy desperately needs a new >>>>>> direction. >>>>>> >>>>>> ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY >>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=%20gilderpublish-20 >>>>>> >>>>>> The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>>>>> >>>>>> BRET SWANSON, Maximum Entropy (09/09/13): Today the D.C. Federal >>>>>> Appeals >>>>>> Court hears Verizon's challenge to the Federal Communications >>>>>> Commission's >>>>>> "Open Internet Order" — better known as "net neutrality." >>>>>> >>>>>> Hard to believe, but we've been arguing over net neutrality for a >>>>>> decade. >>>>>> I just pulled up some testimony George Gilder and I prepared for a >>>>>> Senate >>>>>> Commerce Committee hearing in April 2004. In it, we asserted that a >>>>>> newish >>>>>> "horizontal layers" regulatory proposal, then circulating among >>>>>> comm–law >>>>>> policy wonks, would become the next big tech policy battlefield. >>>>>> Horizontal layers became net neutrality, the Bush FCC adopted the >>>>>> non-binding Four Principles of an open Internet in 2005, the Obama FCC >>>>>> pushed through actual regulations in 2010, and now today's court >>>>>> challenge, which argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate the >>>>>> Internet and that, in fact, Congress told the FCC not to regulate the >>>>>> Internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Over the years we've followed the debate, and often weighed in. Here's >>>>>> a >>>>>> sampling of our articles, reports, reply comments, and even some >>>>>> doggerel: >>>>>> >>>>>> "CBS–Time Warner Cable Spat Shows (Once Again) Why 'Net Neutrality' >>>>>> Won't >>>>>> Work" – by Bret Swanson – August 9, 2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Verizon, ESPN, and the Future of Broadband" – by Bret Swanson – >>>>>> Forbes.com – June 4, 2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> "The Internet Survives, and Thrives, For Now" – by Bret Swanson – >>>>>> RealClearMarkets – December 6, 2010 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Reply Comments to the FCC's Open Internet Further Inquiry" – by Bret >>>>>> Swanson – November 4, 2010 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Net Neutrality, Investment, and Jobs: Assessing the Potential Impact >>>>>> on >>>>>> the Broadband Ecosystem" – by Charles M. Davidson and Bret T. Swanson, >>>>>> Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute, New York Law School, >>>>>> June 16, 2010 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Reply Comments in the FCC Matter of 'Preserving the Open Internet'" – >>>>>> by >>>>>> Bret Swanson – April 26, 2010 >>>>>> >>>>>> "What Would Net Neutrality Mean for U.S. Jobs?" – by Bret Swanson – >>>>>> February 5, 2010 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Net Neutrality's Impact on Internet Innovation" – prepared for the New >>>>>> York City Council – by Bret Swanson – November 20, 2009 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Google and the Problem With 'Net Neutrality'" – by Bret Swanson, The >>>>>> Wall >>>>>> Street Journal, October 5, 2009 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Leviathan Spam" – by Bret Swanson – A whimsical take on "Net >>>>>> Neutrality" >>>>>> – September 23, 2009 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Unleashing the 'Exaflood'" – by Bret Swanson and George Gilder, The >>>>>> Wall >>>>>> Street Journal, February 22, 2008 >>>>>> >>>>>> "The Coming Exaflood" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, >>>>>> January >>>>>> 20, 2007 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Let There Be Bandwidth" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, >>>>>> March >>>>>> 7, 2006 >>>>>> >>>>>> "Testimony For Telecommunications Policy: A Look Ahead" – testimony >>>>>> before >>>>>> the Senate Commerce Committee – by George Gilder – April 28, 2004 >>>>>> >>>>>> More from Bret Swanson: >>>>>> http://www.bretswanson.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: >>>>>> http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WEALTH & POVERTY: A New Edition for the 21st Century >>>>>> >>>>>> The New York Times bestseller Wealth and Poverty by George Gilder is >>>>>> one >>>>>> of the most famous economic books of all time and has sold more than >>>>>> one >>>>>> million copies since its first release. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the new, completely updated, edition, Gilder compares America's >>>>>> current >>>>>> economic challenges with her past economic problems, and explains why >>>>>> Obama's big–government, redistributive policies are doing more harm >>>>>> than >>>>>> good. Wealth and Poverty (2012) offers solutions to America's current >>>>>> economic problems and hope to those who fear that our best days are >>>>>> behind >>>>>> us. >>>>>> >>>>>> Order Your Copy Today! >>>>>> >>>>>> Friday Feature /Israeli Companies Are On Sale >>>>>> >>>>>> Gilder Telecosm Forum MEMBER (09/09/13): George, Please give us a >>>>>> futurist's view of what we should be investing in. Thanks in advance >>>>>> for >>>>>> your reply. >>>>>> >>>>>> GEORGE GILDER, Gilder Telecosm Forum (09/10/13): I'll work on it, >>>>>> though >>>>>> my noggin is mostly full of information theory these days. The >>>>>> environment >>>>>> for small and mid–sized tech is ferocious. Now that the EPA has >>>>>> effectively banned nanotech, regarding carbon nanotubes as a new form >>>>>> of >>>>>> asbestos, and network neutrality threatens the Internet, I might have >>>>>> to >>>>>> resort to biotech, as long as it remains legal (genetic modification, >>>>>> eek!). >>>>>> >>>>>> Meanwhile, I'll make do with my usual suspects, most of which you can >>>>>> buy >>>>>> more cheaply than ever. I would particularly note that great Israeli >>>>>> companies such as the cloud security paragon RADW are on sale. EZCH is >>>>>> still the best semiconductor company in the world and an even better >>>>>> stock >>>>>> because it remains widely unrecognized; TSEM is still the best analog >>>>>> play >>>>>> and also even cheaper despite its increasingly stable finances; CGEN is >>>>>> no >>>>>> longer in the bargain basement but is worth a bet; EVGN.TA remains >>>>>> attractive; INTC is an Israeli company in disguise and is on sale >>>>>> despite >>>>>> its world leading fabs and attractive Moore's Law double dividends; AMD >>>>>> spearheads graphics processors and will gain with clouds; ADSK seems >>>>>> well >>>>>> valued but it is the leader in 3D CAD and moving into the cloud with >>>>>> ever >>>>>> ascendant and unique software from Otoy; and AUDC is now better valued >>>>>> but >>>>>> it is a survivor at layer–five at a time when everything is becoming >>>>>> sessions… >>>>>> >>>>>> Read more posts by George Gilder and the Telecosm Forum members by >>>>>> logging >>>>>> on to the Gilder Telecosm Forum with your subscriber password at >>>>>> www.gildertech.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: >>>>>> http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Israel Test: Why the World's Most Besieged State >>>>>> is a Beacon of Freedom and Hope for the World Economy >>>>>> >>>>>> Have you ever wondered why, in our time, it is the Left that leads the >>>>>> attack on Israel? After reading The Israel Test you will never wonder >>>>>> again. George Gilder's brilliant work definitively shows how America's >>>>>> ability and desire to defend Israel will define our survival as a >>>>>> nation: >>>>>> "If Israel is destroyed, capitalist Europe will likely die as well, and >>>>>> America, as the epitome of productive and creative capitalism spurred >>>>>> by >>>>>> Jews, will be in jeopardy." >>>>>> >>>>>> ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY [Now in Paperback!] >>>>>> Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited >>>>>> >>>>>> STEPHEN MOORE, Wall Street Journal Book Review of "The Growth >>>>>> Experiment >>>>>> Revisited", By Lawrence Lindsey (09/09/13): When Ronald Reagan endorsed >>>>>> the idea of supply–side tax cuts in 1981, he turned 50 years of >>>>>> economic >>>>>> orthodoxy on its head. Even Republicans like Sen. Howard Baker of >>>>>> Tennessee, who voted for the cuts, called it "a riverboat gamble." What >>>>>> followed was a quarter–century of nearly unprecedented wealth creation >>>>>> and >>>>>> technological progress. America's net worth exploded by nearly $40 >>>>>> trillion in these years, and nearly 40 million Americans were added to >>>>>> business payrolls. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, in the wake of the great recession of 2008–09 and the fifth year >>>>>> of >>>>>> the most meager of Keynesian "recoveries," it is a good time to >>>>>> re–explore >>>>>> how supply–side policies set America on the prosperity path in the >>>>>> go–go >>>>>> years of the 1980s and '90s. This is what Lawrence Lindsey's "The >>>>>> Growth >>>>>> Experiment Revisited" sets out to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> The 1980s boom was launched on the simple insight that, by lowering tax >>>>>> rates and regulatory hurdles and juicing the incentives to produce, >>>>>> innovate and take risks, the animal spirits of the American >>>>>> free–enterprise system would revive. Two seminal books hatched the >>>>>> supply–side revolution. The first was Jude Wanniski's "The Way the >>>>>> World >>>>>> Works" (1978); the second, George Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty" (1981). >>>>>> >>>>>> Almost as influential, coming a few years later, was Lawrence Lindsey's >>>>>> "The Growth Experiment" (1990). Slightly academic in nature, it was the >>>>>> first book to quantify the economic and revenue windfall of the 1981 >>>>>> Reagan across–the–board tax cuts. Mr. Lindsey's conclusion was that >>>>>> Reagan's 1981 tax act quickened the pace of production, which reduced >>>>>> the >>>>>> predicted revenue loss. His research found that although the Reagan tax >>>>>> cuts didn't "pay for themselves," the ones at the highest end of the >>>>>> income spectrum "did produce a revenue gain" because of "changes in >>>>>> taxpayer behavior." He concluded that "the core supply–side tenet—that >>>>>> tax >>>>>> rates powerfully affect the willingness of taxpayers to work, save and >>>>>> invest, and thereby also affect the health of the economy—won as >>>>>> stunning >>>>>> a vindication as has been seen in at least a half–century of >>>>>> economics." >>>>>> >>>>>> He has now updated his book, taking us through the booms and busts of >>>>>> the >>>>>> past 20 years. It is a valuable project in part because Mr. Lindsey was >>>>>> a >>>>>> front–seat economic adviser to George W. Bush, serving as director of >>>>>> the >>>>>> National Economic Council and as one of the architects of the >>>>>> often–maligned 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mr. Lindsey's central claim is that those tax changes saved the economy >>>>>> from the undertow of the financial meltdown at the end of the Clinton >>>>>> presidency. The bursting of the high–tech bubble in 1999–2000, which >>>>>> tends >>>>>> to be forgotten, was followed by the turmoil and economic upheaval >>>>>> after >>>>>> 9/11. Mr. Lindsey makes a convincing case that Mr. Bush doesn't receive >>>>>> nearly the credit he deserves for steering the economy clear of a >>>>>> mini–depression in the early 2000s. The economic revival of 2003–07 >>>>>> wasn't >>>>>> particularly speedy, but it looks impressive today when compared with >>>>>> the >>>>>> dismal results of Obamanomics. >>>>>> >>>>>> The purpose of the tax cuts, Mr. Lindsey writes, was "to provide a >>>>>> cushion >>>>>> for the economy when the bubble burst." They were designed as an >>>>>> "insurance policy" against a downturn. The author says that he was >>>>>> driven >>>>>> by a lesson, impressed upon him by then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan >>>>>> Greenspan, not to repeat the policy mistakes after the 1929 stock >>>>>> market >>>>>> crash, when taxes and tariffs were raised in 1930 and 1931. They only >>>>>> exacerbated the length and severity of the Depression. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mr. Lindsey writes that the Bush tax cut in 2001 was "a standard >>>>>> Keynesian >>>>>> remedy for a recession" but "with a supply–side twist," and that it >>>>>> helped >>>>>> avert a deeper recession. "The economy began to recover as soon as the >>>>>> tax–cut checks hit," he insists. Those policies consisted mainly of tax >>>>>> rebates, credits and a slow phase–down of rates (to a 35% maximum). On >>>>>> the >>>>>> opinion pages of this newspaper we have questioned the >>>>>> bang–for–the–buck >>>>>> quality of the 2001 tax package, arguing that, contrary to Mr. >>>>>> Lindsey's >>>>>> claim, the rebates and credits bumped up consumption in only a minor >>>>>> and >>>>>> temporary way and that what was needed was permanent tax–rate >>>>>> reductions >>>>>> to encourage investment and work. It is true that the economy revived >>>>>> in >>>>>> 2001 and 2002, but only haltingly. >>>>>> >>>>>> The real economic sparkplug was the 2003 investment–tax cut, which >>>>>> lowered >>>>>> the rate on capital gains and dividends. Not only did growth >>>>>> accelerate, >>>>>> but stocks rose in value—as Mr. Lindsey had predicted—and revenues to >>>>>> the >>>>>> federal government exploded by nearly $800 billion until 2008, when the >>>>>> bursting of the housing bubble sent the economy into the intensive–care >>>>>> unit. >>>>>> >>>>>> For all the moaning about growing deficits under Mr. Bush, Mr. Lindsey >>>>>> defends the record of the president he worked for: The cumulative debt >>>>>> during Mr. Bush's two terms, he notes, added $2 trillion—or less than >>>>>> the >>>>>> amount Barack Obama borrowed in his first two years in office. This is >>>>>> true, though it ignores the fact that Mr. Bush left behind a deficit >>>>>> that >>>>>> was headed to $1 trillion in 2009 no matter who became president. Mr. >>>>>> Lindsey sees vindication in Mr. Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax >>>>>> cuts for everyone in 2011 and for "99 percent of all taxpayers" in >>>>>> 2013. >>>>>> >>>>>> The puzzle of Mr. Lindsey is that one of the most prominent defenders >>>>>> of >>>>>> supply–side economics and lower tax rates is also a disciple of >>>>>> demand–side economics: He believes that, in times of recession, >>>>>> Keynesian >>>>>> fiscal policies designed to increase overall demand will help steer an >>>>>> economy back on the growth path. Both tax cuts and spending increases, >>>>>> he >>>>>> says, "may be sensible as counter–cyclical policies." >>>>>> >>>>>> That isn't everyone's reading of history, of course. What is beyond >>>>>> dispute, after reading Mr. Lindsey's book, is that tax rates have a >>>>>> direct >>>>>> effect on the health of the economy, a lesson that the current Obama >>>>>> administration has chosen to ignore. >>>>>> >>>>>> Comment On This: >>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579055323264287530.html >>>>>> __________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Like The Gilder Friday Letter on Facebook: >>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Gilders-Friday-Letter/215657745111042?v=wall >>>>>> __________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Readings / >>>>>> >>>>>> ABC's Monday Night Football Offers Essential Lesson In Economics >>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/09/08/abcs-monday-night-football-offers-an-essential-lesson-in-economics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey GOP! Get Smart Fighting Obamacare >>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/09/04/hey-gop-get-smart-fighting-obamacare/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John Scully Just Gave His Most Detailed Account of How Steve Jobs Got >>>>>> Fired From Apple >>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/09/09/john-sculley-just-gave-his-most-detailed-account-ever-of-how-steve-jobs-got-fired-from-apple/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Startup Culture is Killing Innovation >>>>>> http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-do-research-when-you-can-fail-fast-pivot-and-act-out-other-popular-startup-cliches/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wall Street Give New iPhone Thumbs Down >>>>>> http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/11/wall-street-gives-apples-new-iphones-thumbs-down/ >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> ADVERTISING INFORMATION >>>>>> The Friday Letter is emailed each week to 100,000–plus subscribers and >>>>>> friends of Gilder Publishing, including industry leaders, financial >>>>>> professionals and individual investors. For information about >>>>>> advertising, >>>>>> contact Diane Schmid at dschmid at forbes.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> FEEDBACK AND PROBLEMS >>>>>> For technical problems, or to send letters to the editor, please e-mail >>>>>> info at gilder.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> MAILING ADDRESS >>>>>> Gilder Publishing, LLC >>>>>> ATTN: Friday Letter >>>>>> 291A Main Street >>>>>> Great Barrington, MA 01230 >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> The Friday Letter is published weekly for subscribers and friends of >>>>>> Gilder Publishing. If someone you know would enjoy it, please feel free >>>>>> to >>>>>> forward a copy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gilder Publishing makes the Friday Letter available for free. To help >>>>>> defray some of the costs of producing this information on a weekly >>>>>> basis, >>>>>> we will from time to time be sending you offers from companies we think >>>>>> you'll be interested in. These offers will not come more than once a >>>>>> week. >>>>>> If you do not wish to receive this related information, please opt out >>>>>> of >>>>>> this process at the link below and we will not share your name with >>>>>> companies outside of Gilder Publishing. >>>>>> >>>>>> To SUBSCRIBE please visit http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>>>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE please go to: >>>>>> http://forbes-news.psmessage.com/Sub/40/0/31sbhcqKtgqfp2Kzz7zK5qpcz2zK0rizKzf7s3 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Copyright 2013 Gilder Publishing LLC >>>>>> >>>>>> You are receiving this email as an opted-in subscriber to Forbes >>>>>> Newsletters. You are on our mailing list as: mranchord at yahoo.co.nz >>>>>> >>>>>> If you do not want to receive email offers from Forbes Newsletters in >>>>>> the >>>>>> future, click here. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may also email your opt-out request to privacyadmin at forbes.com >>>>>> or send your request in the mail directly to Forbes Inc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Attn: Privacy Administrator 60 Fifth Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10011. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please click below to review our privacy policy: >>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/fdc/privacy.html >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AMESSINOU Kossi >>>> Ingénieur TIC >>>> ICT Engineer >>>> Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 >>>> skype: amessinou >>>> @amessinou @bigf >>>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi >>>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>>> Que Dieu vous bénisse >>>> Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la >>>> gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. >>> >> >> >> -- >> AMESSINOU Kossi >> Ingénieur TIC >> ICT Engineer >> Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 >> skype: amessinou >> @amessinou @bigf >> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi >> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >> Que Dieu vous bénisse >> Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la >> gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Sep 14 11:08:17 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:08:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> Message-ID: <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard that the judges are leaning towards allowing telecom and cable broadband providers to charge OTT players for prioritized network services, but will leave some other parts of the FCC's Open Internet rules intact. Meanwhile in Europe, Commission vice president Neelie Kroes last week released proposals for major telecom reform aiming to create a single telecom market which include network neutrality provisions that would allow telcos to do much the same: they'd be able to differentiate their offers perhaps by speed and compete on enhanced quality of service. Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent throttling of traffic and blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc). Press release for the EC proposals , good summary If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other country's to allow the same. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Sep 14 15:10:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:10:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <7BCDD9A1-0B18-4DCE-A2D6-1970965DD103@glocom.ac.jp> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <7BCDD9A1-0B18-4DCE-A2D6-1970965DD103@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Sep 15, 2013, at 2:37 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Sala, > > Yaovi recently joined ICANN . I've worked with him on a couple of committees, he's a very smart guy, ICANN's lucky to get him. > > Adam > > Thanks Adam. > > On Sep 14, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >> >> On Sep 14, 2013, at 11:45 PM, Kossi Amessinou wrote: >> >>> Dear salanieta, >>> Thank you for your message. I am from Benin. >> >> Hi Kossi - let me know if you know Yaovi Atohoun (Benin) who is very involved in ICT in your country. Happy to introduce you offline. >>> >>> 2013/9/14, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro : >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 14, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Kossi Amessinou >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> Internet is important for all people. If all of us are working >>>>> together, why the african can not have the quality of internet to use? >>>>> We pay so much money to get bad quality service. why anything can not >>>>> be doing for us? Let me know, please!! >>>> Hi Kossi, >>>> >>>> There can be different reasons for this. If the wholesale is expensive, >>>> chances are when it is passed down through the Telcos and ISPs, it can be >>>> expensive as well. Things like liberalization of the telecommunications >>>> industry in countries coupled with healthy competition and a regulatory >>>> environment can help bring prices down for ordinary consumers. Sometimes, >>>> the lack of an Internet Exchange Point can also clog the pipes and make >>>> traffic inefficient and costly as well. >>>> >>>> A good way to have your say is to get in touch with your country's regulator >>>> of the telecommunications industry and engage in dialogue. No one country is >>>> the same as the next and each context is different. >>>> >>>> By the way, Kossi, could you please remind me of which country you are from >>>> again? Hope you are well and I hope access improves in your country. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>>> 2013/9/13, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> : >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I just found out that on the 9th September, 2013, the DC Federal Appeals >>>>>> Court heard Verizon's challenge to FCC's open internet order, see below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wish I was in DC to have sat in to hear the saline arguments. >>>>>> >>>>>> See below for more information. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Manoj Ranchord >>>>>>> Date: September 14, 2013, 6:59:19 AM GMT+12:00 >>>>>>> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Fw: The Gilder Friday Letter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FYI - some commentary on net neutrality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ps. This is a good source for alternative view from predominant >>>>>>> opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Forbes Newsletters ; >>>>>>> To: ; >>>>>>> Subject: The Gilder Friday Letter v.567.0 >>>>>>> Sent: Fri, Sep 13, 2013 1:00:34 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> — THE FRIDAY LETTER — >>>>>>> (emailed weekly, from Gilder Publishing, LLC >>>>>>> for Forbes friends and subscribers) >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> | http://www.gilder.com/ | Issue 568.0/September 13, 2013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LIKE US ON FACEBOOK >>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/#!/GilderFridayLetter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HEADLINES: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>>>>>> - Friday Feature / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>>>>>> - Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited >>>>>>> - Readings / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of >>>>>>> Capitalism and How it is Revolutionizing our World >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ronald Reagan's most–quoted living author—George Gilder—is back with an >>>>>>> all–new paradigm–shifting theory of capitalism that will upturn >>>>>>> conventional wisdom, just when our economy desperately needs a new >>>>>>> direction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY >>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=%20gilderpublish-20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Week / A Decade Later, Net Neutrality Goes to Court >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BRET SWANSON, Maximum Entropy (09/09/13): Today the D.C. Federal >>>>>>> Appeals >>>>>>> Court hears Verizon's challenge to the Federal Communications >>>>>>> Commission's >>>>>>> "Open Internet Order" — better known as "net neutrality." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hard to believe, but we've been arguing over net neutrality for a >>>>>>> decade. >>>>>>> I just pulled up some testimony George Gilder and I prepared for a >>>>>>> Senate >>>>>>> Commerce Committee hearing in April 2004. In it, we asserted that a >>>>>>> newish >>>>>>> "horizontal layers" regulatory proposal, then circulating among >>>>>>> comm–law >>>>>>> policy wonks, would become the next big tech policy battlefield. >>>>>>> Horizontal layers became net neutrality, the Bush FCC adopted the >>>>>>> non-binding Four Principles of an open Internet in 2005, the Obama FCC >>>>>>> pushed through actual regulations in 2010, and now today's court >>>>>>> challenge, which argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate the >>>>>>> Internet and that, in fact, Congress told the FCC not to regulate the >>>>>>> Internet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Over the years we've followed the debate, and often weighed in. Here's >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> sampling of our articles, reports, reply comments, and even some >>>>>>> doggerel: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "CBS–Time Warner Cable Spat Shows (Once Again) Why 'Net Neutrality' >>>>>>> Won't >>>>>>> Work" – by Bret Swanson – August 9, 2013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Verizon, ESPN, and the Future of Broadband" – by Bret Swanson – >>>>>>> Forbes.com – June 4, 2013 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The Internet Survives, and Thrives, For Now" – by Bret Swanson – >>>>>>> RealClearMarkets – December 6, 2010 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Reply Comments to the FCC's Open Internet Further Inquiry" – by Bret >>>>>>> Swanson – November 4, 2010 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Net Neutrality, Investment, and Jobs: Assessing the Potential Impact >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> the Broadband Ecosystem" – by Charles M. Davidson and Bret T. Swanson, >>>>>>> Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute, New York Law School, >>>>>>> June 16, 2010 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Reply Comments in the FCC Matter of 'Preserving the Open Internet'" – >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> Bret Swanson – April 26, 2010 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "What Would Net Neutrality Mean for U.S. Jobs?" – by Bret Swanson – >>>>>>> February 5, 2010 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Net Neutrality's Impact on Internet Innovation" – prepared for the New >>>>>>> York City Council – by Bret Swanson – November 20, 2009 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Google and the Problem With 'Net Neutrality'" – by Bret Swanson, The >>>>>>> Wall >>>>>>> Street Journal, October 5, 2009 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Leviathan Spam" – by Bret Swanson – A whimsical take on "Net >>>>>>> Neutrality" >>>>>>> – September 23, 2009 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Unleashing the 'Exaflood'" – by Bret Swanson and George Gilder, The >>>>>>> Wall >>>>>>> Street Journal, February 22, 2008 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The Coming Exaflood" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, >>>>>>> January >>>>>>> 20, 2007 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Let There Be Bandwidth" – by Bret Swanson, The Wall Street Journal, >>>>>>> March >>>>>>> 7, 2006 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Testimony For Telecommunications Policy: A Look Ahead" – testimony >>>>>>> before >>>>>>> the Senate Commerce Committee – by George Gilder – April 28, 2004 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More from Bret Swanson: >>>>>>> http://www.bretswanson.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: >>>>>>> http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WEALTH & POVERTY: A New Edition for the 21st Century >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The New York Times bestseller Wealth and Poverty by George Gilder is >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> of the most famous economic books of all time and has sold more than >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> million copies since its first release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the new, completely updated, edition, Gilder compares America's >>>>>>> current >>>>>>> economic challenges with her past economic problems, and explains why >>>>>>> Obama's big–government, redistributive policies are doing more harm >>>>>>> than >>>>>>> good. Wealth and Poverty (2012) offers solutions to America's current >>>>>>> economic problems and hope to those who fear that our best days are >>>>>>> behind >>>>>>> us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Order Your Copy Today! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Friday Feature /Israeli Companies Are On Sale >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gilder Telecosm Forum MEMBER (09/09/13): George, Please give us a >>>>>>> futurist's view of what we should be investing in. Thanks in advance >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> your reply. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GEORGE GILDER, Gilder Telecosm Forum (09/10/13): I'll work on it, >>>>>>> though >>>>>>> my noggin is mostly full of information theory these days. The >>>>>>> environment >>>>>>> for small and mid–sized tech is ferocious. Now that the EPA has >>>>>>> effectively banned nanotech, regarding carbon nanotubes as a new form >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> asbestos, and network neutrality threatens the Internet, I might have >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> resort to biotech, as long as it remains legal (genetic modification, >>>>>>> eek!). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, I'll make do with my usual suspects, most of which you can >>>>>>> buy >>>>>>> more cheaply than ever. I would particularly note that great Israeli >>>>>>> companies such as the cloud security paragon RADW are on sale. EZCH is >>>>>>> still the best semiconductor company in the world and an even better >>>>>>> stock >>>>>>> because it remains widely unrecognized; TSEM is still the best analog >>>>>>> play >>>>>>> and also even cheaper despite its increasingly stable finances; CGEN is >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> longer in the bargain basement but is worth a bet; EVGN.TA remains >>>>>>> attractive; INTC is an Israeli company in disguise and is on sale >>>>>>> despite >>>>>>> its world leading fabs and attractive Moore's Law double dividends; AMD >>>>>>> spearheads graphics processors and will gain with clouds; ADSK seems >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> valued but it is the leader in 3D CAD and moving into the cloud with >>>>>>> ever >>>>>>> ascendant and unique software from Otoy; and AUDC is now better valued >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> it is a survivor at layer–five at a time when everything is becoming >>>>>>> sessions… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read more posts by George Gilder and the Telecosm Forum members by >>>>>>> logging >>>>>>> on to the Gilder Telecosm Forum with your subscriber password at >>>>>>> www.gildertech.com. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> REGISTER FOR A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE FRIDAY LETTER: >>>>>>> http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Israel Test: Why the World's Most Besieged State >>>>>>> is a Beacon of Freedom and Hope for the World Economy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have you ever wondered why, in our time, it is the Left that leads the >>>>>>> attack on Israel? After reading The Israel Test you will never wonder >>>>>>> again. George Gilder's brilliant work definitively shows how America's >>>>>>> ability and desire to defend Israel will define our survival as a >>>>>>> nation: >>>>>>> "If Israel is destroyed, capitalist Europe will likely die as well, and >>>>>>> America, as the epitome of productive and creative capitalism spurred >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> Jews, will be in jeopardy." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY [Now in Paperback!] >>>>>>> Blogger Bonus / The Growth Experiment Revisited >>>>>>> >>>>>>> STEPHEN MOORE, Wall Street Journal Book Review of "The Growth >>>>>>> Experiment >>>>>>> Revisited", By Lawrence Lindsey (09/09/13): When Ronald Reagan endorsed >>>>>>> the idea of supply–side tax cuts in 1981, he turned 50 years of >>>>>>> economic >>>>>>> orthodoxy on its head. Even Republicans like Sen. Howard Baker of >>>>>>> Tennessee, who voted for the cuts, called it "a riverboat gamble." What >>>>>>> followed was a quarter–century of nearly unprecedented wealth creation >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> technological progress. America's net worth exploded by nearly $40 >>>>>>> trillion in these years, and nearly 40 million Americans were added to >>>>>>> business payrolls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, in the wake of the great recession of 2008–09 and the fifth year >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the most meager of Keynesian "recoveries," it is a good time to >>>>>>> re–explore >>>>>>> how supply–side policies set America on the prosperity path in the >>>>>>> go–go >>>>>>> years of the 1980s and '90s. This is what Lawrence Lindsey's "The >>>>>>> Growth >>>>>>> Experiment Revisited" sets out to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The 1980s boom was launched on the simple insight that, by lowering tax >>>>>>> rates and regulatory hurdles and juicing the incentives to produce, >>>>>>> innovate and take risks, the animal spirits of the American >>>>>>> free–enterprise system would revive. Two seminal books hatched the >>>>>>> supply–side revolution. The first was Jude Wanniski's "The Way the >>>>>>> World >>>>>>> Works" (1978); the second, George Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty" (1981). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Almost as influential, coming a few years later, was Lawrence Lindsey's >>>>>>> "The Growth Experiment" (1990). Slightly academic in nature, it was the >>>>>>> first book to quantify the economic and revenue windfall of the 1981 >>>>>>> Reagan across–the–board tax cuts. Mr. Lindsey's conclusion was that >>>>>>> Reagan's 1981 tax act quickened the pace of production, which reduced >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> predicted revenue loss. His research found that although the Reagan tax >>>>>>> cuts didn't "pay for themselves," the ones at the highest end of the >>>>>>> income spectrum "did produce a revenue gain" because of "changes in >>>>>>> taxpayer behavior." He concluded that "the core supply–side tenet—that >>>>>>> tax >>>>>>> rates powerfully affect the willingness of taxpayers to work, save and >>>>>>> invest, and thereby also affect the health of the economy—won as >>>>>>> stunning >>>>>>> a vindication as has been seen in at least a half–century of >>>>>>> economics." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He has now updated his book, taking us through the booms and busts of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> past 20 years. It is a valuable project in part because Mr. Lindsey was >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> front–seat economic adviser to George W. Bush, serving as director of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> National Economic Council and as one of the architects of the >>>>>>> often–maligned 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mr. Lindsey's central claim is that those tax changes saved the economy >>>>>>> from the undertow of the financial meltdown at the end of the Clinton >>>>>>> presidency. The bursting of the high–tech bubble in 1999–2000, which >>>>>>> tends >>>>>>> to be forgotten, was followed by the turmoil and economic upheaval >>>>>>> after >>>>>>> 9/11. Mr. Lindsey makes a convincing case that Mr. Bush doesn't receive >>>>>>> nearly the credit he deserves for steering the economy clear of a >>>>>>> mini–depression in the early 2000s. The economic revival of 2003–07 >>>>>>> wasn't >>>>>>> particularly speedy, but it looks impressive today when compared with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> dismal results of Obamanomics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The purpose of the tax cuts, Mr. Lindsey writes, was "to provide a >>>>>>> cushion >>>>>>> for the economy when the bubble burst." They were designed as an >>>>>>> "insurance policy" against a downturn. The author says that he was >>>>>>> driven >>>>>>> by a lesson, impressed upon him by then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan >>>>>>> Greenspan, not to repeat the policy mistakes after the 1929 stock >>>>>>> market >>>>>>> crash, when taxes and tariffs were raised in 1930 and 1931. They only >>>>>>> exacerbated the length and severity of the Depression. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mr. Lindsey writes that the Bush tax cut in 2001 was "a standard >>>>>>> Keynesian >>>>>>> remedy for a recession" but "with a supply–side twist," and that it >>>>>>> helped >>>>>>> avert a deeper recession. "The economy began to recover as soon as the >>>>>>> tax–cut checks hit," he insists. Those policies consisted mainly of tax >>>>>>> rebates, credits and a slow phase–down of rates (to a 35% maximum). On >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> opinion pages of this newspaper we have questioned the >>>>>>> bang–for–the–buck >>>>>>> quality of the 2001 tax package, arguing that, contrary to Mr. >>>>>>> Lindsey's >>>>>>> claim, the rebates and credits bumped up consumption in only a minor >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> temporary way and that what was needed was permanent tax–rate >>>>>>> reductions >>>>>>> to encourage investment and work. It is true that the economy revived >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> 2001 and 2002, but only haltingly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The real economic sparkplug was the 2003 investment–tax cut, which >>>>>>> lowered >>>>>>> the rate on capital gains and dividends. Not only did growth >>>>>>> accelerate, >>>>>>> but stocks rose in value—as Mr. Lindsey had predicted—and revenues to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> federal government exploded by nearly $800 billion until 2008, when the >>>>>>> bursting of the housing bubble sent the economy into the intensive–care >>>>>>> unit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all the moaning about growing deficits under Mr. Bush, Mr. Lindsey >>>>>>> defends the record of the president he worked for: The cumulative debt >>>>>>> during Mr. Bush's two terms, he notes, added $2 trillion—or less than >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> amount Barack Obama borrowed in his first two years in office. This is >>>>>>> true, though it ignores the fact that Mr. Bush left behind a deficit >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> was headed to $1 trillion in 2009 no matter who became president. Mr. >>>>>>> Lindsey sees vindication in Mr. Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax >>>>>>> cuts for everyone in 2011 and for "99 percent of all taxpayers" in >>>>>>> 2013. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The puzzle of Mr. Lindsey is that one of the most prominent defenders >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> supply–side economics and lower tax rates is also a disciple of >>>>>>> demand–side economics: He believes that, in times of recession, >>>>>>> Keynesian >>>>>>> fiscal policies designed to increase overall demand will help steer an >>>>>>> economy back on the growth path. Both tax cuts and spending increases, >>>>>>> he >>>>>>> says, "may be sensible as counter–cyclical policies." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That isn't everyone's reading of history, of course. What is beyond >>>>>>> dispute, after reading Mr. Lindsey's book, is that tax rates have a >>>>>>> direct >>>>>>> effect on the health of the economy, a lesson that the current Obama >>>>>>> administration has chosen to ignore. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Comment On This: >>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324123004579055323264287530.html >>>>>>> __________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like The Gilder Friday Letter on Facebook: >>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Gilders-Friday-Letter/215657745111042?v=wall >>>>>>> __________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Readings / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ABC's Monday Night Football Offers Essential Lesson In Economics >>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/09/08/abcs-monday-night-football-offers-an-essential-lesson-in-economics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey GOP! Get Smart Fighting Obamacare >>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/09/04/hey-gop-get-smart-fighting-obamacare/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Scully Just Gave His Most Detailed Account of How Steve Jobs Got >>>>>>> Fired From Apple >>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/09/09/john-sculley-just-gave-his-most-detailed-account-ever-of-how-steve-jobs-got-fired-from-apple/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Startup Culture is Killing Innovation >>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-do-research-when-you-can-fail-fast-pivot-and-act-out-other-popular-startup-cliches/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wall Street Give New iPhone Thumbs Down >>>>>>> http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/11/wall-street-gives-apples-new-iphones-thumbs-down/ >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> ADVERTISING INFORMATION >>>>>>> The Friday Letter is emailed each week to 100,000–plus subscribers and >>>>>>> friends of Gilder Publishing, including industry leaders, financial >>>>>>> professionals and individual investors. For information about >>>>>>> advertising, >>>>>>> contact Diane Schmid at dschmid at forbes.com. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FEEDBACK AND PROBLEMS >>>>>>> For technical problems, or to send letters to the editor, please e-mail >>>>>>> info at gilder.com. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MAILING ADDRESS >>>>>>> Gilder Publishing, LLC >>>>>>> ATTN: Friday Letter >>>>>>> 291A Main Street >>>>>>> Great Barrington, MA 01230 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Friday Letter is published weekly for subscribers and friends of >>>>>>> Gilder Publishing. If someone you know would enjoy it, please feel free >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> forward a copy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gilder Publishing makes the Friday Letter available for free. To help >>>>>>> defray some of the costs of producing this information on a weekly >>>>>>> basis, >>>>>>> we will from time to time be sending you offers from companies we think >>>>>>> you'll be interested in. These offers will not come more than once a >>>>>>> week. >>>>>>> If you do not wish to receive this related information, please opt out >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> this process at the link below and we will not share your name with >>>>>>> companies outside of Gilder Publishing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To SUBSCRIBE please visit http://nct.digitalriver.com/fulfill/0165.035 >>>>>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE please go to: >>>>>>> http://forbes-news.psmessage.com/Sub/40/0/31sbhcqKtgqfp2Kzz7zK5qpcz2zK0rizKzf7s3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Copyright 2013 Gilder Publishing LLC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are receiving this email as an opted-in subscriber to Forbes >>>>>>> Newsletters. You are on our mailing list as: mranchord at yahoo.co.nz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you do not want to receive email offers from Forbes Newsletters in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> future, click here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You may also email your opt-out request to privacyadmin at forbes.com >>>>>>> or send your request in the mail directly to Forbes Inc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attn: Privacy Administrator 60 Fifth Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10011. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please click below to review our privacy policy: >>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/fdc/privacy.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> AMESSINOU Kossi >>>>> Ingénieur TIC >>>>> ICT Engineer >>>>> Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 >>>>> skype: amessinou >>>>> @amessinou @bigf >>>>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi >>>>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>>>> Que Dieu vous bénisse >>>>> Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la >>>>> gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> AMESSINOU Kossi >>> Ingénieur TIC >>> ICT Engineer >>> Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 >>> skype: amessinou >>> @amessinou @bigf >>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi >>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>> Que Dieu vous bénisse >>> Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la >>> gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 14 23:27:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 08:57:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> On Saturday 14 September 2013 08:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard that the judges are leaning towards allowing telecom and cable broadband providers to charge OTT players for prioritized network services, but will leave some other parts of the FCC's Open Internet rules intact. Meanwhile in Europe, Commission vice president Neelie Kroes last week released proposals for major telecom reform aiming to create a single telecom market which include network neutrality provisions that would allow telcos to do much the same: they'd be able to differentiate their offers perhaps by speed and compete on enhanced quality of service. Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent throttling of traffic and blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc). > > Press release for the EC proposals , good summary > > If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other country's to allow the same. Which is a huge problem of global (non) governance of the Internet - that the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework of the Internet by sheer market/economic, and, also often, political dominance. Civil society has not been able to offer any response to this patently anti democratic situation. Neither has the much touted multistakeholder model any response to this situation. A bit strange that even after 7 editions of the IGF, while Bali IGF will be full of sessions on multistakeholderism, all these years we could not get one main session on net neutrality (NN) - which to me is almost 'the' paradigmatic public policy issue of IG. In fact, there were really a lot of proposals to get a main session on NN this year but , at the Paris MAG consultations, I had the feeling that these proposals were actively discouraged if not sabotaged by the powers that be.... Perhaps MAG members can help us understand why we could not get a main session on NN, when all kinds of sessions with vague titles made the grade... This gives grist to the propositions that the exclusive focus on procedural issues at the IGF just helps build a smokescreen preventing the needed global discussions on real public policy issues. Very unfortunate that while , as per above Adam's email, the die seems to have been cast in terms of a non NN Internet, all these years IGC has still not being able to get over arguing on things like - the meaning of NN is not clear.... I consider it as a major failure of IGC that we could do nothing, much less provide leadership, on this all crucial IG issue..... parminder > > Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Sep 14 23:33:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:03:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1411fadf078.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> The net neutrality debate has changed for the worse from its early form. Right now there is almost as much innuendo, politics and mudslinging there as there is in IG. So I am sort of glad that at least isn't coming in to poison the atmosphere here further. --srs (htc one x) On 15 September 2013 8:57:37 AM parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 14 September 2013 08:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard that the judges are leaning > towards allowing telecom and cable broadband providers to charge OTT > players for prioritized network services, but will leave some other parts > of the FCC's Open Internet rules intact. Meanwhile in Europe, Commission > vice president Neelie Kroes last week released proposals for major telecom > reform aiming to create a single telecom market which include network > neutrality provisions that would allow telcos to do much the same: they'd > be able to differentiate their offers perhaps by speed and compete on > enhanced quality of service. Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent > throttling of traffic and blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc). > > Press release for the EC proposals > , good summary > > > If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in > either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other country's > to allow the same. > > > Which is a huge problem of global (non) governance of the Internet - that > the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework of the Internet > by sheer market/economic, and, also often, political dominance. Civil > society has not been able to offer any response to this patently anti > democratic situation. Neither has the much touted multistakeholder model > any response to this situation. > > A bit strange that even after 7 editions of the IGF, while Bali IGF will be > full of sessions on multistakeholderism, all these years we could not get > one main session on net neutrality (NN) - which to me is almost 'the' > paradigmatic public policy issue of IG. In fact, there were really a lot of > proposals to get a main session on NN this year but , at the Paris MAG > consultations, I had the feeling that these proposals were actively > discouraged if not sabotaged by the powers that be.... Perhaps MAG members > can help us understand why we could not get a main session on NN, when all > kinds of sessions with vague titles made the grade... > > This gives grist to the propositions that the exclusive focus on procedural > issues at the IGF just helps build a smokescreen preventing the needed > global discussions on real public policy issues. > > Very unfortunate that while , as per above Adam's email, the die seems to > have been cast in terms of a non NN Internet, all these years IGC has still > not being able to get over arguing on things like - the meaning of NN is > not clear.... I consider it as a major failure of IGC that we could do > nothing, much less provide leadership, on this all crucial IG issue..... > > parminder > > > > Adam > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 15 00:16:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:46:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52353482.9050505@itforchange.net> > > On Saturday 14 September 2013 08:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard that the judges are >> leaning towards allowing telecom and cable broadband providers to >> charge OTT players for prioritized network services, but will leave >> some other parts of the FCC's Open Internet rules intact. Meanwhile >> in Europe, Commission vice president Neelie Kroes last week released >> proposals for major telecom reform aiming to create a single telecom >> market which include network neutrality provisions that would allow >> telcos to do much the same: they'd be able to differentiate their >> offers perhaps by speed and compete on enhanced quality of service. >> Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent throttling of traffic and >> blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc). >> Press release for the EC proposals >> , good summary >> >> If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in >> either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other >> country's to allow the same. Also, all those pious statements that governments should not decide things in IG arena are much better directed at US and EU governments, instead of developing country governments who havent much to decide on with regard to global IG.... Who decided the new EU framework on net neutrality, or the US law and norms, which would be the global framework??? Let the MS-ists ask this of themselves, and then tell us.. This is the debate that needs to take place here... This is real global Internet governance - and the Northern governments are doing it, completely on their own. Please turn your MS guns towards them, for whatever they are worth. And please stop participating in their hypocrisy about preaching MSism to others, whom they desperately want to keep away from the table where public policy decisions are taken for the whole world.... Let at least civil society people from developing countries take these wake up call.... It is in a very undemocratic way that the global governance of the Internet is being done today, and they are completely out of it.... No, just joining the MS chorus will not get you there, it simply plays in the hands to those who want to keep the Internet controls in their own hands. The global governance of the Internet needs to really be democratised.. parminder > > > Which is a huge problem of global (non) governance of the Internet - > that the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework of the > Internet by sheer market/economic, and, also often, political > dominance. Civil society has not been able to offer any response to > this patently anti democratic situation. Neither has the much touted > multistakeholder model any response to this situation. > > A bit strange that even after 7 editions of the IGF, while Bali IGF > will be full of sessions on multistakeholderism, all these years we > could not get one main session on net neutrality (NN) - which to me is > almost 'the' paradigmatic public policy issue of IG. In fact, there > were really a lot of proposals to get a main session on NN this year > but , at the Paris MAG consultations, I had the feeling that these > proposals were actively discouraged if not sabotaged by the powers > that be.... Perhaps MAG members can help us understand why we could > not get a main session on NN, when all kinds of sessions with vague > titles made the grade... > > This gives grist to the propositions that the exclusive focus on > procedural issues at the IGF just helps build a smokescreen preventing > the needed global discussions on real public policy issues. > > Very unfortunate that while , as per above Adam's email, the die seems > to have been cast in terms of a non NN Internet, all these years IGC > has still not being able to get over arguing on things like - the > meaning of NN is not clear.... I consider it as a major failure of IGC > that we could do nothing, much less provide leadership, on this all > crucial IG issue..... > > parminder > > >> Adam > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 15 00:32:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:02:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <52353482.9050505@itforchange.net> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> <52353482.9050505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Criticizing something from the outside is easy. Mean spirited criticism from outside may be slightly more difficult. Participating takes effort. Actually doing something meaningful and hands on takes even more effort. I certainly would like to see civil society worldwide, without specious north and south distinctions, actively participate. --srs (iPad) On 15-Sep-2013, at 9:46, parminder wrote: > > This is real global Internet governance - and the Northern governments are doing it, completely on their own. Please turn your MS guns towards them, for whatever they are worth. And please stop participating in their hypocrisy about preaching MSism to others, whom they desperately want to keep away from the table where public policy decisions are taken for the whole world.... > > Let at least civil society people from developing countries take these wake up call.... It is in a very undemocratic way that the global governance of the Internet is being done today, and they are completely out of it.... No, just joining the MS chorus will not get you there, it simply plays in the hands to those who want to keep the Internet controls in their own hands. The global governance of the Internet needs to really be democratised.. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 15 01:26:31 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:56:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards Message-ID: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> On the Cryptography mailing list, John Gilmore (co-founder of pioneering ISP The Little Garden and the Electronic Frontier Foundation; early Sun employee; cypherpunk; significant contributor to GNU/Linux and its crypto suite; and all-round Internet superhero) describes his interactions with the NSA and several obvious NSA stooges on the IPSEC standardization working groups at the Internet Engineering Task Force. It's an anatomy of how the NSA worked to undermine and sabotage important security standards. For example, "NSA employees explicitly lied to standards committees, such as that for cellphone encryption, /*telling them that if they merely debated an actually-secure protocol, they would be violating the export control laws unless they excluded all foreigners from the room*/ (in an international standards committee!)." (emphasis added) http://boingboing.net/2013/09/08/firsthand-account-of-nsa-sabot.html What does it say for the US staying as a neutral, global interest protecting, venue for global governance of the Internet! parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 15 01:30:56 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:00:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> References: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> Participate. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 --srs (iPad) On 15-Sep-2013, at 10:56, parminder wrote: > On the Cryptography mailing list, John Gilmore (co-founder of pioneering ISP The Little Garden and the Electronic Frontier Foundation; early Sun employee; cypherpunk; significant contributor to GNU/Linux and its crypto suite; and all-round Internet superhero) describes his interactions with the NSA and several obvious NSA stooges on the IPSEC standardization working groups at the Internet Engineering Task Force. It's an anatomy of how the NSA worked to undermine and sabotage important security standards. For example, "NSA employees explicitly lied to standards committees, such as that for cellphone encryption, telling them that if they merely debated an actually-secure protocol, they would be violating the export control laws unless they excluded all foreigners from the room (in an international standards committee!)." (emphasis added) > > http://boingboing.net/2013/09/08/firsthand-account-of-nsa-sabot.html > > What does it say for the US staying as a neutral, global interest protecting, venue for global governance of the Internet! > > parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 15 08:55:14 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 08:55:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:27 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 14 September 2013 08:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard that the judges are leaning >> towards allowing telecom and cable broadband providers to charge OTT >> players for prioritized network services, but will leave some other parts >> of the FCC's Open Internet rules intact. Meanwhile in Europe, Commission >> vice president Neelie Kroes last week released proposals for major telecom >> reform aiming to create a single telecom market which include network >> neutrality provisions that would allow telcos to do much the same: they'd >> be able to differentiate their offers perhaps by speed and compete on >> enhanced quality of service. Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent >> throttling of traffic and blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc). >> Press release for the EC proposals > release_IP-13-828_en.htm>, >> good summary >> > >> If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in >> either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other country's >> to allow the same. >> > > > Which is a huge problem agreed. > of global (non) governance of the Internet but not of this - that the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework of the > Internet It's not the architecture that is being dictated. > by sheer market/economic, and, also often, political dominance. Civil > society has not been able to offer any response If you think this, you haven't been paying any attention. See http://publicknowledge.org/blog/verizon-v-fcc-amicus-brief-roundup for examples. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Sep 15 09:07:05 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:07:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <899181853.10118.1379250425321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m27> Good one, Parminder ! a fully deserved + 1 The same smokescreen tactics are used by the WSIS Forum organizers, ITU first ! Whereas Africa was given priority for its still missing continental network during the WSIS, the 8 WSIS Fora never organized an official thematic session focused on this problematic objective. What's more, ITU launched on its own the "Connect Africa" Summit in 2007 and its "Global Broadband Commission" (with the symbolic support of UNESCO), splendidly ignoring the so much touted multistakeholderism ! And after 8 WSIS Fora, Africa is still waiting for its Panaftel that ITU and its memberstates promised for ... 1998. The "Connect Africa" Summit, ITU and African leaders governments all together, committed themselves to complete the continental network by 2012 ... But as the (French) joke goes, commitments only engage those who believe in them ! That's why in 2013 Africa and its friends are still waiting ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack> Message du 15/09/13 05:29 > De : "parminder" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality > > > On Saturday 14 September 2013 08:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard that the judges are leaning towards allowing telecom and cable broadband providers to charge OTT players for prioritized network services, but will leave some other parts of the FCC's Open Internet rules intact. Meanwhile in Europe, Commission vice president Neelie Kroes last week released proposals for major telecom reform aiming to create a single telecom market which include network neutrality provisions that would allow telcos to do much the same: they'd be able to differentiate their offers perhaps by speed and compete on enhanced quality of service. Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent throttling of traffic and blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc). > > > > Press release for the EC proposals , good summary > > > > If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other country's to allow the same. > > > Which is a huge problem of global (non) governance of the Internet - > that the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework of the > Internet by sheer market/economic, and, also often, political dominance. > Civil society has not been able to offer any response to this patently > anti democratic situation. Neither has the much touted multistakeholder > model any response to this situation. > > A bit strange that even after 7 editions of the IGF, while Bali IGF will > be full of sessions on multistakeholderism, all these years we could not > get one main session on net neutrality (NN) - which to me is almost > 'the' paradigmatic public policy issue of IG. In fact, there were really > a lot of proposals to get a main session on NN this year but , at the > Paris MAG consultations, I had the feeling that these proposals were > actively discouraged if not sabotaged by the powers that be.... Perhaps > MAG members can help us understand why we could not get a main session > on NN, when all kinds of sessions with vague titles made the grade... > > This gives grist to the propositions that the exclusive focus on > procedural issues at the IGF just helps build a smokescreen preventing > the needed global discussions on real public policy issues. > > Very unfortunate that while , as per above Adam's email, the die seems > to have been cast in terms of a non NN Internet, all these years IGC has > still not being able to get over arguing on things like - the meaning of > NN is not clear.... I consider it as a major failure of IGC that we > could do nothing, much less provide leadership, on this all crucial IG > issue..... > > parminder > > > > > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 15 09:18:59 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:18:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <899181853.10118.1379250425321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m27> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> <899181853.10118.1379250425321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m27> Message-ID: Jean-Louis, On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > Good one, Parminder ! a fully deserved + 1 > > > > The same smokescreen tactics are used by the WSIS Forum organizers, ITU > first ! Whereas Africa was given priority for its still missing continental > network during the WSIS, the 8 WSIS Fora never organized an official > thematic session focused on this problematic objective. What's more, ITU > launched on its own the "Connect Africa" Summit in 2007 and its "Global > Broadband Commission" (with the symbolic support of UNESCO), splendidly > ignoring the so much touted multistakeholderism ! And after 8 WSIS Fora, > Africa is still waiting for its Panaftel that ITU and its memberstates > promised for ... 1998. The "Connect Africa" Summit, ITU and African leaders > governments all together, committed themselves to complete the continental > network by 2012 ... But as the (French) joke goes, commitments only engage > those who believe in them ! That's why in 2013 Africa and its friends > are still waiting ... > The PS has already built this network (still more to be done), but you can see the excellent progress here: http://manypossibilities.net/afterfibre/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Sep 15 09:48:39 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:48:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> <899181853.10118.1379250425321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m27> Message-ID: <1673391461.10521.1379252919835.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> Thanks McTim The problem with these maps as shown in your link is that they are aimed to "communicate" rather than to plot completed and operational (working) links ! Hence you have to eliminate all these "powerpoint infrastructures" and the links that are idle either due to mis-enginneering (e.g. Uganda), or to technical defaults or to lack of means (financial inclusive) to repair. Unfortunately, there are a lot; Best > Message du 15/09/13 15:19 > De : "McTim" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > Copie à : "parminder" > Objet : Re: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality > > > Jean-Louis, > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > Good one, Parminder ! a fully deserved + 1 > > The same smokescreen tactics are used by the WSIS Forum organizers, ITU first ! Whereas Africa was given priority for its still missing continental network during the WSIS, the 8 WSIS Fora never organized an official thematic session focused on this problematic objective. What's more, ITU launched on its own the "Connect Africa" Summit in 2007 and its "Global Broadband Commission" (with the symbolic support of UNESCO), splendidly ignoring the so much touted multistakeholderism ! And after 8 WSIS Fora, Africa is still waiting for its Panaftel that ITU and its memberstates promised for ... 1998. The "Connect Africa" Summit, ITU and African leaders governments all together, committed themselves to complete the continental network by 2012 ... But as the (French) joke goes, commitments only engage those who believe in them ! That's why in 2013 Africa and its friends are still waiting ... > The PS has already built this network (still more to be done), but you can see the excellent progress here: > http://manypossibilities.net/afterfibre/ > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Sep 15 10:03:43 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 16:03:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Participate. > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 > > --srs (iPad) > > government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. 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 cveraq at gmail.com Sun Sep 15 10:17:54 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:17:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Remember: until 2000 in the Clinton's administration IE with 128 bits encryption was under export control (25 years in jail) and only for American citizens Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq El 15/09/2013, a las 9:03, "Louis Pouzin (well)" escribió: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Participate. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 >> >> --srs (iPad) > > > government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards > > Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. > The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 15 10:31:22 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:31:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <1673391461.10521.1379252919835.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> <899181853.10118.1379250425321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m27> <1673391461.10521.1379252919835.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > Thanks McTim > > > > The problem with these maps as shown in your link is that they are aimed > to "communicate" rather than to plot completed and operational (working) > links ! Hence you have to eliminate all these "powerpoint infrastructures" > and the links that are idle either due to mis-enginneering (e.g. Uganda), > or to technical defaults or to lack of means (financial inclusive) to > repair. > > Unfortunately, there are a lot; > there are. But in the last 5 years or so, the PS folk have been laying operational fiber without government involvement, so the waste fraud and abuse of funds isn't what it once was. The bottom line is that the PS is creating this fiber network in Africa. Here is another map of a completely operational network of one provider, connecting Capet Town to Kampala and points in between. It's a reality on the ground. http://www.liquidtelecom.com/fibre/fibre-map -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 15 10:58:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:28:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0689303F-1716-416E-898B-CC88F9DA9116@hserus.net> Yes and in 2000 a lot of us were using 56k dialup modems too. It would be good to focus on this specific process. --srs (iPad) On 15-Sep-2013, at 19:47, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > Remember: until 2000 in the Clinton's administration IE with 128 bits encryption was under export control (25 years in jail) and only for American citizens > > Carlos Vera Quintana > 0988141143 > Sígueme @cveraq > > El 15/09/2013, a las 9:03, "Louis Pouzin (well)" escribió: > >> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> Participate. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >> >> > government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards >> >> Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. >> The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. >> >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Sep 15 11:10:21 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 17:10:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> <899181853.10118.1379250425321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m27> <1673391461.10521.1379252919835.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> Message-ID: <1141095329.12513.1379257821480.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> Indeed, Liquid Telecom is not only an ambitious operator (this may be a compliment) but also a clever marketing expert ... In other words, this map demonstrates what I's mentioning in my previous mail. < PS folk have been laying Not sure you're right. Take a look (e.g.) at the West African coast and you'll find about eight submarine cables serving the almost same landing stations. Do you know how many are busy and what amount of traffic (in Gbit/s) they are REALLY carrying ? Actually, three submarine cables/systems would be sufficient for carrying all the traffic even the foreseeable one. Since the mean cost of such a submarine cable is 600 M$ you may be able to judge if your assumption is still relevant. And this West African coast case is just one of a lot of others ... Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 15/09/13 16:32 > De : "McTim" > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > Copie à : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "parminder" > Objet : Re: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality > > > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > Thanks McTim > > The problem with these maps as shown in your link is that they are aimed to "communicate" rather than to plot completed and operational (working) links ! Hence you have to eliminate all these "powerpoint infrastructures" and the links that are idle either due to mis-enginneering (e.g. Uganda), or to technical defaults or to lack of means (financial inclusive) to repair. > Unfortunately, there are a lot; > > there are. But in the last 5 years or so, the PS folk have been laying operational fiber without government involvement, so the waste fraud and abuse of funds isn't what it once was. > The bottom line is that the PS is creating this fiber network in Africa. Here is another map of a completely operational network of one provider, connecting Capet Town to Kampala and points in between. It's a reality on the ground. http://www.liquidtelecom.com/fibre/fibre-map > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Sep 15 11:15:54 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:15:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <0689303F-1716-416E-898B-CC88F9DA9116@hserus.net> References: <0689303F-1716-416E-898B-CC88F9DA9116@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2EF47114-7AB4-457B-A837-D9C941B35375@gmail.com> Only because of competition (France, Israel, open source) USA allows use of IE with strong encryption. So if you have choices, then you have ways to fight Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq El 15/09/2013, a las 9:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian escribió: > Yes and in 2000 a lot of us were using 56k dialup modems too. > > It would be good to focus on this specific process. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 15-Sep-2013, at 19:47, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > >> Remember: until 2000 in the Clinton's administration IE with 128 bits encryption was under export control (25 years in jail) and only for American citizens >> >> Carlos Vera Quintana >> 0988141143 >> Sígueme @cveraq >> >> El 15/09/2013, a las 9:03, "Louis Pouzin (well)" escribió: >> >>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> Participate. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> > government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards >>> >>> Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. >>> The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. >>> >>> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Sep 15 11:21:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 08:21:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <0689303F-1716-416E-898B-CC88F9DA9116@hserus.net> References: <0689303F-1716-416E-898B-CC88F9DA9116@hserus.net> Message-ID: <068f01ceb227$4e38b150$eaaa13f0$@gmail.com> Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos Vera Quintana Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well); parminder Subject: Re: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards Yes and in 2000 a lot of us were using 56k dialup modems too. It would be good to focus on this specific process. --srs (iPad) On 15-Sep-2013, at 19:47, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: Remember: until 2000 in the Clinton's administration IE with 128 bits encryption was under export control (25 years in jail) and only for American citizens Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq El 15/09/2013, a las 9:03, "Louis Pouzin (well)" escribió: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Participate. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 --srs (iPad) > government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Sep 15 11:28:31 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:28:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <068f01ceb227$4e38b150$eaaa13f0$@gmail.com> References: <0689303F-1716-416E-898B-CC88F9DA9116@hserus.net> <068f01ceb227$4e38b150$eaaa13f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Exactly Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq El 15/09/2013, a las 10:21, "michael gurstein" escribió: > Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it… > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:59 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos Vera Quintana > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well); parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards > > Yes and in 2000 a lot of us were using 56k dialup modems too. > > It would be good to focus on this specific process. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 15-Sep-2013, at 19:47, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > > Remember: until 2000 in the Clinton's administration IE with 128 bits encryption was under export control (25 years in jail) and only for American citizens > > Carlos Vera Quintana > 0988141143 > Sígueme @cveraq > > El 15/09/2013, a las 9:03, "Louis Pouzin (well)" escribió: > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Participate. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 > > --srs (iPad) > > > government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards > > Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. > The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 15 12:06:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:36:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards Message-ID: Yes and because of competition and disclosure NIST is initiating a process now that they wouldn't have done during the cold war So, do participate  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Carlos Vera Quintana Date: 09/15/2013 8:45 PM (GMT+05:30) To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Louis Pouzin (well)" ,parminder Subject: Re: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards Only because of competition (France, Israel, open source) USA allows use of IE with strong encryption. So if you have choices, then you have ways to fight  Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq El 15/09/2013, a las 9:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian escribió: Yes and in 2000 a lot of us were using 56k dialup modems too.  It would be good to focus on this specific process. --srs (iPad) On 15-Sep-2013, at 19:47, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: Remember: until 2000 in the Clinton's administration IE with 128 bits encryption was under export control (25 years in jail) and only for American citizens   Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq El 15/09/2013, a las 9:03, "Louis Pouzin (well)" escribió: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Participate. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 --srs (iPad) > government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards   Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 15 12:07:17 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:37:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards Message-ID: And those that stay rooted in the past remain there.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 09/15/2013 8:51 PM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,'Suresh Ramasubramanian' ,'Carlos Vera Quintana' Cc: "'Louis Pouzin (well)'" ,'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it…   M   From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos Vera Quintana Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well); parminder Subject: Re: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards   Yes and in 2000 a lot of us were using 56k dialup modems too.    It would be good to focus on this specific process. --srs (iPad) On 15-Sep-2013, at 19:47, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: Remember: until 2000 in the Clinton's administration IE with 128 bits encryption was under export control (25 years in jail) and only for American citizens   Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq El 15/09/2013, a las 9:03, "Louis Pouzin (well)" escribió: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Participate. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 --srs (iPad) > government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards   Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards.   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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 15 12:47:24 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 17:47:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <1141095329.12513.1379257821480.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> <899181853.10118.1379250425321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m27> <1673391461.10521.1379252919835.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> <1141095329.12513.1379257821480.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> Message-ID: Level of knowledge in Africa is totally underutilized; It becomes almost impossible for them to initial development. Africans totally depend on outsiders to grow. The businessman is after profit and Africans are just there to consume all without thinking of tomorrow and the impact of their development. Bob Marley had cautioned Africans to unite if they must solve the challenges before them. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Sep 15, 2013 4:10 PM, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" wrote: > > > Indeed, Liquid Telecom is not only an ambitious operator (this may be a > compliment) but also a clever marketing expert ... In other words, this map > demonstrates what I's mentioning in my previous mail. > > > > < PS folk have been laying > and abuse of funds isn't what it once was.>* > > Not sure you're right. Take a look (e.g.) at the West African coast and > you'll find about eight submarine cables serving the almost same landing > stations. Do you know how many are busy and what amount of traffic (in > Gbit/s) they are REALLY carrying ? > > Actually, three submarine cables/systems would be sufficient for carrying > all the traffic even the foreseeable one. Since the mean cost of such a > submarine cable is 600 M$ you may be able to judge if your assumption is > still relevant. And this West African coast case is just one of a lot of > others ... > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > Message du 15/09/13 16:32 > > De : "McTim" > > A : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > > Copie à : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "parminder" > > Objet : Re: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK > wrote: > > >> >> > >> >> > Thanks McTim >> >> > >> >> > The problem with these maps as shown in your link is that they are >> aimed to "communicate" rather than to plot completed and operational >> (working) links ! Hence you have to eliminate all these "powerpoint >> infrastructures" and the links that are idle either due to mis-enginneering >> (e.g. Uganda), or to technical defaults or to lack of means (financial >> inclusive) to repair. >> >> > Unfortunately, there are a lot; >> > > > > > > > there are. But in the last 5 years or so, the PS folk have been laying > operational fiber without government involvement, so the waste fraud and > abuse of funds isn't what it once was. > > > > The bottom line is that the PS is creating this fiber network in Africa. > Here is another map of a completely operational network of one provider, > connecting Capet Town to Kampala and points in between. It's a reality on > the ground. http://www.liquidtelecom.com/fibre/fibre-map > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 15 13:23:21 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 13:23:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> <899181853.10118.1379250425321.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m27> <1673391461.10521.1379252919835.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> <1141095329.12513.1379257821480.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f04> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Level of knowledge in Africa is totally underutilized; It becomes almost > impossible for them to initial development. > > Africans totally depend on outsiders to grow. > Liquid Telecom is an African company, as are many others in the telecom/Internet/data infrastructure space. On the East Coast of Africa, SEACOM is PS, TEAMS is PPP, EASSY is a blend of the two, with mostly incumbent telcos (some gov owned) in the lead (92% African, 8% int'l). All have traffic, lots of it. The West Coast initiatives started several years after the East Coast ones, it's no wonder they haven't caught up yet. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Sep 15 15:06:40 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:06:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <072101ceb246$bc019c00$3404d400$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 11:05 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/15/nsa-mind-keith-alexande r-star-trek Inside the mind of NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander It has been previously reported that the mentality of NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander is captured by his motto "Collect it All". It's a get-everything approach he pioneered first when aimed at an enemy population in the middle of a war zone in Iraq, one he has now imported onto US soil, aimed at the domestic population and everyone else. But a perhaps even more disturbing and revealing vignette into the spy chief's mind comes from a new Foreign Policy article describing what the journal calls his "all-out, barely-legal drive to build the ultimate spy machine". The article describes how even his NSA peers see him as a "cowboy" willing to play fast and loose with legal limits in order to construct a system of ubiquitous surveillance. But the personality driving all of this - not just Alexander's but much of Washington's - is perhaps best captured by this one passage, highlighted by PBS' News Hour in a post entitled: "NSA director modeled war room after Star Trek's Enterprise". The room was christened as part of the "Information Dominance Center": "When he was running the Army's Intelligence and Security Command, Alexander brought many of his future allies down to Fort Belvoir for a tour of his base of operations, a facility known as the Information Dominance Center. It had been designed by a Hollywood set designer to mimic the bridge of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek, complete with chrome panels, computer stations, a huge TV monitor on the forward wall, and doors that made a 'whoosh' sound when they slid open and closed. Lawmakers and other important officials took turns sitting in a leather 'captain's chair' in the center of the room and watched as Alexander, a lover of science-fiction movies, showed off his data tools on the big screen. "'Everybody wanted to sit in the chair at least once to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard,' says a retired officer in charge of VIP visits." Numerous commentators remarked yesterday on the meaning of all that (note, too, how "Total Information Awareness" was a major scandal in the Bush years, but "Information Dominance Center" - along with things like "Boundless Informant" - are treated as benign or even noble programs in the age of Obama). But now, on the website of DBI Architects, Inc. of Washington and Reston, Virginia, there are what purports to be photographs of the actual Star-Trek-like headquarters commissioned by Gen. Alexander that so impressed his Congressional overseers. It's a 10,740 square foot labyrinth in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The brochure touts how "the prominently positioned chair provides the commanding officer an uninterrupted field of vision to a 22'-0" wide projection screen": The glossy display further describes how "this project involved the renovation of standard office space into a highly classified, ultramodern operations center." Its "primary function is to enable 24-hour worldwide visualization, planning, and execution of coordinated information operations for the US Army and other federal agencies." It gushes: "The futuristic, yet distinctly military, setting is further reinforced by the Commander's console, which gives the illusion that one has boarded a star ship": Other photographs of Gen. Alexander's personal Star Trek Captain fantasy come-to-life (courtesy of public funds) are here. Any casual review of human history proves how deeply irrational it is to believe that powerful factions can be trusted to exercise vast surveillance power with little accountability or transparency. But the more they proudly flaunt their warped imperial hubris, the more irrational it becomes. Related issues (1) Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has an excellent Op-Ed in the Guardian arguing that the NSA is so far out-of-control that radical measures, rather than incremental legislative reform, are necessary to rein it in. (2) The Federation of American Scientists' Steven Aftergood, usually a reform-minded transparency advocate somewhat hostile to massive leaks, examines the serious reform which Snowden's disclosures are enabling, as reluctantly acknowledged even by the FISA court and James Clapper himself. (3) British comedian Russell Brand attended an event sponsored by GQ and Hugo Boss and gave a speech, while accepting an award, which offended almost everyone in the room (that speech is here). He then wrote a genuinely brilliant (and quite hilarious) Op-Ed in the Guardian about the role elite institutions play in reinforcing their legitimacy and how they maintain control of public discourse. It is well worth taking the time to read it. ------------------------------------------- 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=20130915140513:5C1D31F8-1E31-11E3-9A9F-867127900C9B 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 karl at cavebear.com Sun Sep 15 15:50:29 2013 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:50:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52360F85.70002@cavebear.com> On 09/15/2013 07:03 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. > The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. If the actual encryption algorithm contains a mathematical backdoor then code inspection of an open implementation is not likely to reveal the flaw. That's the scary thing - it is now beyond hyperbolic speculation that some intentional weaknesses may have been secretly baked into the actual mathematics of the algorithms. And lest we forget that sometimes we may not be able to see what is there we ought not to forget this famous paper: Reflections on Trusting Trust Ken Thompson http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html After reading that who can say that our compilers or interpreters are safe to use to compile open source encryption code? --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 15 17:09:52 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:09:52 +1000 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <52360F85.70002@cavebear.com> References: <52360F85.70002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <85196828115E4A4481773BF58466065F@Toshiba> I am copying this largely unedited from a response on another mailing list - but I think its relevant to the debate here as well. I was responding to Vint Cerf's suggestion that " I think the only pragmatic response is to provide strong authentication standards, strong cryptography, and protocols that allow users to detect hijack, MITM re-directs, false certificates, etc. " ( Apologies to those who have already seen this). It would be lovely it were as simple as this, Vint,and I agree the efforts should be made and a pragmatic response is a good start. But I think the primary problem is trust, for which there is no technical-only solution. And I have just been alerted elsewhere to this great article - http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html by ACM award winner Ken Thompson on the subject of trust in code. We have seen stories of IPSEC being compromised by NSA demands. Why then would we trust the output of any IETF working group that contains members from companies who are subject to NSA directives and unable to tell us when they are acting under such directives? And even if we did trust the output of working groups, would we trust the implementations of these standards by major software and hardware players subject to NSA directives? The primary problem we face is a political one, caused by interference in the Internet and its common use platforms for political purposes. There is a political dimension to this problem that cannot be solved technically, and which must be addressed. There are also significant economic issues for the industry if the problems are not addressed politically as well as technically. And while I am on the rant, I do not find the narrowing of the political debate to a focus on US surveillance of US citizens helpful at all. Mass surveillance worldwide by any country on the citizens of any country has to be addressed as well before trust in the Internet will be restored. I am not the only person who now questions every software update I receive. I no longer trust major hardware platforms with US origins or containing chips with US origins. (or Chinese hardware for that matter...) But I suspect the next 12 months will begin to show substantial economic effects and drops in market share for US companies as a result of this problem. The pragmatist in me hopes that there will eventually be a political solution brought on by economic concerns, because I don’t see a response based on privacy considerations being forthcoming. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:50 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards On 09/15/2013 07:03 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. > The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. If the actual encryption algorithm contains a mathematical backdoor then code inspection of an open implementation is not likely to reveal the flaw. That's the scary thing - it is now beyond hyperbolic speculation that some intentional weaknesses may have been secretly baked into the actual mathematics of the algorithms. And lest we forget that sometimes we may not be able to see what is there we ought not to forget this famous paper: Reflections on Trusting Trust Ken Thompson http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html After reading that who can say that our compilers or interpreters are safe to use to compile open source encryption code? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Sun Sep 15 17:54:41 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:54:41 +1000 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <85196828115E4A4481773BF58466065F@Toshiba> References: <52360F85.70002@cavebear.com> <85196828115E4A4481773BF58466065F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <6A3ECCFB6C874F898736B80EBBB41996@Toshiba> Apologies for “I don’t see a response based on privacy considerations being forthcoming”. I would have been better saying that I don’t see such responses being accepted by authorities without an accompanying economic rationale. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 7:09 AM To: Karl Auerbach ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards I am copying this largely unedited from a response on another mailing list - but I think its relevant to the debate here as well. I was responding to Vint Cerf's suggestion that " I think the only pragmatic response is to provide strong authentication standards, strong cryptography, and protocols that allow users to detect hijack, MITM re-directs, false certificates, etc. " ( Apologies to those who have already seen this). It would be lovely it were as simple as this, Vint,and I agree the efforts should be made and a pragmatic response is a good start. But I think the primary problem is trust, for which there is no technical-only solution. And I have just been alerted elsewhere to this great article - http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html by ACM award winner Ken Thompson on the subject of trust in code. We have seen stories of IPSEC being compromised by NSA demands. Why then would we trust the output of any IETF working group that contains members from companies who are subject to NSA directives and unable to tell us when they are acting under such directives? And even if we did trust the output of working groups, would we trust the implementations of these standards by major software and hardware players subject to NSA directives? The primary problem we face is a political one, caused by interference in the Internet and its common use platforms for political purposes. There is a political dimension to this problem that cannot be solved technically, and which must be addressed. There are also significant economic issues for the industry if the problems are not addressed politically as well as technically. And while I am on the rant, I do not find the narrowing of the political debate to a focus on US surveillance of US citizens helpful at all. Mass surveillance worldwide by any country on the citizens of any country has to be addressed as well before trust in the Internet will be restored. I am not the only person who now questions every software update I receive. I no longer trust major hardware platforms with US origins or containing chips with US origins. (or Chinese hardware for that matter...) But I suspect the next 12 months will begin to show substantial economic effects and drops in market share for US companies as a result of this problem. The pragmatist in me hopes that there will eventually be a political solution brought on by economic concerns, because I don’t see a response based on privacy considerations being forthcoming. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:50 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards On 09/15/2013 07:03 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. > The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. If the actual encryption algorithm contains a mathematical backdoor then code inspection of an open implementation is not likely to reveal the flaw. That's the scary thing - it is now beyond hyperbolic speculation that some intentional weaknesses may have been secretly baked into the actual mathematics of the algorithms. And lest we forget that sometimes we may not be able to see what is there we ought not to forget this famous paper: Reflections on Trusting Trust Ken Thompson http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html After reading that who can say that our compilers or interpreters are safe to use to compile open source encryption code? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 15 19:15:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:45:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <52360F85.70002@cavebear.com> References: <52360F85.70002@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <14123e82758.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Which is why participating in a review becomes essential If after that you know to trust or not trust every algorithm covered by the review, that is a useful takeaway. --srs (htc one x) On 16 September 2013 1:20:29 AM Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 09/15/2013 07:03 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > > > Best quote of the day, so cutely childish. > > The trend is no secret: user open source encryption and States standards. > > If the actual encryption algorithm contains a mathematical backdoor then > code inspection of an open implementation is not likely to reveal the flaw. > > That's the scary thing - it is now beyond hyperbolic speculation that > some intentional weaknesses may have been secretly baked into the actual > mathematics of the algorithms. > > And lest we forget that sometimes we may not be able to see what is > there we ought not to forget this famous paper: > > Reflections on Trusting Trust > Ken Thompson > http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html > > After reading that who can say that our compilers or interpreters are > safe to use to compile open source encryption code? > > --karl-- > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Sep 16 05:24:05 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:24:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130916112405.4059639b@quill> Parminder wrote: > > If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in > > either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other > > country's to allow the same. > > Which is a huge problem of global (non) governance of the Internet - > that the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework of > the Internet by sheer market/economic, and, also often, political > dominance. Civil society has not been able to offer any response to > this patently anti democratic situation. Neither has the much touted > multistakeholder model any response to this situation. > > A bit strange that even after 7 editions of the IGF, while Bali IGF > will be full of sessions on multistakeholderism, all these years we > could not get one main session on net neutrality (NN) - which to me > is almost 'the' paradigmatic public policy issue of IG. In fact, > there were really a lot of proposals to get a main session on NN this > year but , at the Paris MAG consultations, I had the feeling that > these proposals were actively discouraged if not sabotaged by the > powers that be.... Perhaps MAG members can help us understand why we > could not get a main session on NN, when all kinds of sessions with > vague titles made the grade... +1 > the die seems to have been cast in terms of a non NN Internet As correctly described in the text which Adam forwarded, the outcome is by no means certain neither in the EU nor in the US. I've been following the EU developments a bit: The situation is essentially that (reportedly after talking a lot with industry lobbyists, and pretty much not at all with civil society) Kroes is now pushing a legislative proposal that would give the EU a net neutrality directive with actual rules that are so weak that having no directive at all would be far better. That has significant weight, and it is very bad news of course, considering in particular that Kroes in fact used to understand the topic well enough that not long ago she was arguing for a much more reasonable kind of net neutrality rules. On the other hand, the term of office of Kroes is going to end soon, and there is going to be a parliamentary process during which it is quite realistically possible for a proposed directive to be significantly improved, and where civil society has reasonably good opportunities to influence what is going to happen. IMO, as international civil society in the area of Internet governance, we urgently needs to get our act together and draft a good set of guidelines on net neutrality that make sense from an international public interest perspective. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Sep 16 07:03:37 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:03:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> References: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130916130337.7a396f89@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Participate. > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 That is a process of the US “*National* Institute of Standards and Technology” (my emphasis). I would suggest that before it becomes appropriate to call international civil society to participate in a review process for crypto specs, a review process needs to be created that is credibly committed to an international public interest objective! Greetings, Norbert > On 15-Sep-2013, at 10:56, parminder wrote: > > > On the Cryptography mailing list, John Gilmore (co-founder of > > pioneering ISP The Little Garden and the Electronic Frontier > > Foundation; early Sun employee; cypherpunk; significant contributor > > to GNU/Linux and its crypto suite; and all-round Internet > > superhero) describes his interactions with the NSA and several > > obvious NSA stooges on the IPSEC standardization working groups at > > the Internet Engineering Task Force. It's an anatomy of how the NSA > > worked to undermine and sabotage important security standards. For > > example, "NSA employees explicitly lied to standards committees, > > such as that for cellphone encryption, telling them that if they > > merely debated an actually-secure protocol, they would be violating > > the export control laws unless they excluded all foreigners from > > the room (in an international standards committee!)." (emphasis > > added) > > > > http://boingboing.net/2013/09/08/firsthand-account-of-nsa-sabot.html > > > > What does it say for the US staying as a neutral, global interest > > protecting, venue for global governance of the Internet! > > > > parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 16 07:35:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:05:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <20130916130337.7a396f89@quill> References: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> <20130916130337.7a396f89@quill> Message-ID: <141268d4718.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Does there exist any note from them that they ask for feedback only from US citizens? I have seen more than one suggestion here on this very forum that we (for a certain self defined value of we) send feedback to the USG on one thing or the other. --srs (htc one x) On 16 September 2013 4:33:37 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Participate. > > > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 > > That is a process of the US “*National* Institute of Standards and > Technology” (my emphasis). > > I would suggest that before it becomes appropriate to call > international civil society to participate in a review process for > crypto specs, a review process needs to be created that is credibly > committed to an international public interest objective! > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > On 15-Sep-2013, at 10:56, parminder wrote: > > > On the Cryptography mailing list, John Gilmore (co-founder of > > > pioneering ISP The Little Garden and the Electronic Frontier > > > Foundation; early Sun employee; cypherpunk; significant contributor > > > to GNU/Linux and its crypto suite; and all-round Internet > > > superhero) describes his interactions with the NSA and several > > > obvious NSA stooges on the IPSEC standardization working groups at > > > the Internet Engineering Task Force. It's an anatomy of how the NSA > > > worked to undermine and sabotage important security standards. For > > > example, "NSA employees explicitly lied to standards committees, > > > such as that for cellphone encryption, telling them that if they > > > merely debated an actually-secure protocol, they would be violating > > > the export control laws unless they excluded all foreigners from > > > the room (in an international standards committee!)." (emphasis > > > added) > > > > http://boingboing.net/2013/09/08/firsthand-account-of-nsa-sabot.html > > > > What does it say for the US staying as a neutral, global interest > > > protecting, venue for global governance of the Internet! > > > > parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Sep 16 07:59:24 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:59:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <141268d4718.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> <20130916130337.7a396f89@quill> <141268d4718.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130916135924.5baf7052@quill> I support calls to international civil society to provide feedback to the US government about their transborder human rights violations, namely that those human rights violations are not acceptable, and I think that IGC should also provide such feedback. I do not support the idea that international civil society should participate in US national processes or specification review and/or standardization. Such participation, if it were to become significant, would have the undesirable side-effect to strengthen the de facto international role in Internet governance of those US national processes. Greetings, Norbert Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Does there exist any note from them that they ask for feedback only > from US citizens? > > I have seen more than one suggestion here on this very forum that we > (for a certain self defined value of we) send feedback to the USG on > one thing or the other. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 16 September 2013 4:33:37 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > > Participate. > > > > > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 > > > > That is a process of the US “*National* Institute of Standards and > > Technology” (my emphasis). > > > > I would suggest that before it becomes appropriate to call > > international civil society to participate in a review process for > > crypto specs, a review process needs to be created that is credibly > > committed to an international public interest objective! > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > On 15-Sep-2013, at 10:56, parminder > > > wrote: > > > > On the Cryptography mailing list, John Gilmore (co-founder of > > > > pioneering ISP The Little Garden and the Electronic Frontier > > > > Foundation; early Sun employee; cypherpunk; significant > > > > contributor to GNU/Linux and its crypto suite; and all-round > > > > Internet superhero) describes his interactions with the NSA and > > > > several obvious NSA stooges on the IPSEC standardization > > > > working groups at the Internet Engineering Task Force. It's an > > > > anatomy of how the NSA worked to undermine and sabotage > > > > important security standards. For example, "NSA employees > > > > explicitly lied to standards committees, such as that for > > > > cellphone encryption, telling them that if they merely debated > > > > an actually-secure protocol, they would be violating the export > > > > control laws unless they excluded all foreigners from the room > > > > (in an international standards committee!)." (emphasis added) > > > > > http://boingboing.net/2013/09/08/firsthand-account-of-nsa-sabot.html > > > > > What does it say for the US staying as a neutral, global > > > > > interest > > > > protecting, venue for global governance of the Internet! > > > > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 16 08:04:57 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:34:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <20130916135924.5baf7052@quill> References: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> <20130916130337.7a396f89@quill> <141268d4718.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130916135924.5baf7052@quill> Message-ID: <14126a8aad0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> As the ciphers in question are potentially used worldwide.. I would encourage anybody in the caucus who has specific skills in this area to submit their feedback If at all necessary that a US based stakeholder should actually submit it to install, I am sure one can be found assuming the content of such feedback is drafted with technical knowledge and relevance rather than a political ax to grind. --srs (htc one x) On 16 September 2013 5:29:24 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > I support calls to international civil society to provide feedback to > the US government about their transborder human rights violations, > namely that those human rights violations are not acceptable, and I > think that IGC should also provide such feedback. > > I do not support the idea that international civil society should > participate in US national processes or specification review and/or > standardization. Such participation, if it were to become significant, > would have the undesirable side-effect to strengthen the de facto > international role in Internet governance of those US national > processes. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Does there exist any note from them that they ask for feedback only > > from US citizens? > > I have seen more than one suggestion here on this very forum that we > > (for a certain self defined value of we) send feedback to the USG on > > one thing or the other. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 16 September 2013 4:33:37 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > > > > Participate. > > > > > > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?_r=0 > > > > > > That is a process of the US “*National* Institute of Standards and > > > Technology” (my emphasis). > > > > > > I would suggest that before it becomes appropriate to call > > > international civil society to participate in a review process for > > > crypto specs, a review process needs to be created that is credibly > > > committed to an international public interest objective! > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > On 15-Sep-2013, at 10:56, parminder > > > > wrote: > > > > > On the Cryptography mailing list, John Gilmore (co-founder of > > > > > pioneering ISP The Little Garden and the Electronic Frontier > > > > > Foundation; early Sun employee; cypherpunk; significant > > > > > contributor to GNU/Linux and its crypto suite; and all-round > > > > > Internet superhero) describes his interactions with the NSA and > > > > > several obvious NSA stooges on the IPSEC standardization > > > > > working groups at the Internet Engineering Task Force. It's an > > > > > anatomy of how the NSA worked to undermine and sabotage > > > > > important security standards. For example, "NSA employees > > > > > explicitly lied to standards committees, such as that for > > > > > cellphone encryption, telling them that if they merely debated > > > > > an actually-secure protocol, they would be violating the export > > > > > control laws unless they excluded all foreigners from the room > > > > > (in an international standards committee!)." (emphasis added) > > > > > > http://boingboing.net/2013/09/08/firsthand-account-of-nsa-sabot.html > > > > > > What does it say for the US staying as a neutral, global > > > > > > interest > > > > > protecting, venue for global governance of the Internet! > > > > > > parminder > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 16 20:16:00 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 05:46:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [New post] UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened Protocols, Products Message-ID: <2ppterjl6c7xhmne73sjl9bm.1379376729567@email.android.com> Norbert, about my saying 'participate', as you can see, cryptographers from across academia in the UK have responded to NIST.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Threatpost Date: 09/16/2013 9:35 PM (GMT+05:30) To: suresh at hserus.net Subject: [New post] UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened Protocols, Products New post on Threatpost UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened Protocols, Products by Dennis Fisher A group of cryptographers in the UK has published a letter that calls on authorities in that country and the United States to conduct an investigation to determine which security products, protocols and standards have been deliberately weakened by the countries' intelligence services. The letter, signed by a number of researchers from the University of Bristol and other universities, said that the NSA and British GCHQ "have been acting against the interests of the public that they are meant to serve." The appeal comes a couple of weeks after leaked documents from the NSA and its UK counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, showed that the two agencies have been collaborating on projects that give them the ability to subvert encryption protocols and also have been working with unnamed security vendors to insert backdoors into hardware and software products. Security experts have been debating in recent weeks which products, standards and protocols may have been deliberately weakened, but so far no information has been forthcoming. The cryptography researchers in the UK are asking the UK and U.S. governments to reveal which ones are suspect. "By weakening cryptographic standards, in as yet undisclosed ways, and by inserting weaknesses into products which we all rely on to secure critical infrastructure, we believe that the agencies have been acting against the interests of the public that they are meant to serve. We find it shocking that agencies of both the US and UK governments now stand accused of undermining the systems which protect us. By weakening all our security so that they can listen in to the communications of our enemies, they also weaken our security against our potential enemies," the letter says. Published on Monday, the letter is signed by cryptographers from the University of Bristol, University of London, University of Birmingham, University of Luxembourg, University of Southampton, University of Surrey, University of Kent, Newcastle University and University College London. In it, the researchers call on the relevant authorities to publicly name the products and standards that have been weakened in order to inform users which systems they should avoid. "We call on the relevant parties to reveal what systems have been weakened so that they can be repaired, and to create a proper system of oversight with well-defined public rules that clearly forbid weakening the security of civilian systems and infrastructures. The statutory Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Commons needs to investigate this issue as a matter of urgency. In the modern information age we all need to have complete trust in the basic infrastructure that we all use," the letter says. In the weeks since the documents detailing the NSA's cryptographic capabilities emerged, further details about exactly which protocols the agency can attack successfully and which standards it may have influenced have been scarce. NIST, the U.S. agency that develops technical standards for cryptography, among other things, as denied accusations that the NSA was able to weaken some of the NIST standards. However, at the same time, NIST officials have issued a recommendation that people no longer use one of the encryption standards it previously published. "NIST strongly recommends that, pending the resolution of the security concerns and the re-issuance of SP 800-90A, the Dual_EC_DRBG, as specified in the January 2012 version of SP 800-90A, no longer be used," the NIST statement says. The standard in question is an elliptic curve random bit generator, and cryptographers have called into question its integrity in the wake of the latest NSA revelations, mainly because its difficult to tell how the points on the elliptic curve were determined. "This algorithm includes default elliptic curve points for three elliptic curves, the provenance of which were not described. Security researchers have highlighted the importance of generating these elliptic curve points in a trustworthy way. This issue was identified during the development process, and the concern was initially addressed by including specifications for generating different points than the default values that were provided. However, recent community commentary has called into question the trustworthiness of these default elliptic curve points," the NIST statement says. Image from Flickr photos of Elliott Brown.  Dennis Fisher | September 16, 2013 at 12:05 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p3AjUX-qC1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Sep 16 21:14:26 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:14:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards Message-ID: +1 Quite right Norbert. Let's see whether untainted top US cryptographers will echo their UK colleagues. Louis - - - On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I support calls to international civil society to provide feedback to > the US government about their transborder human rights violations, > namely that those human rights violations are not acceptable, and I > think that IGC should also provide such feedback. > > I do not support the idea that international civil society should > participate in US national processes or specification review and/or > standardization. Such participation, if it were to become significant, > would have the undesirable side-effect to strengthen the de facto > international role in Internet governance of those US national > processes. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Sep 16 21:20:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:50:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a bit of a contradiction 1. You +1 norbert saying that international civil society should not participate in this process and 2. You hope that untainted top US cryptographers follow their UK colleagues. If the UK colleagues are expected not to participate in this process .. As it is, cryptographers from the USA are very active on this - and not all of them are NSA stooges, strange as it may sound in the paranoia laden atmosphere here. --srs (iPad) On 17-Sep-2013, at 6:44, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > +1 Quite right Norbert. > Let's see whether untainted top US cryptographers > will echo their UK colleagues. > > Louis > - - - > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> I support calls to international civil society to provide feedback to >> the US government about their transborder human rights violations, >> namely that those human rights violations are not acceptable, and I >> think that IGC should also provide such feedback. >> >> I do not support the idea that international civil society should >> participate in US national processes or specification review and/or >> standardization. Such participation, if it were to become significant, >> would have the undesirable side-effect to strengthen the de facto >> international role in Internet governance of those US national >> processes. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Sep 17 02:50:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:50:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [New post] UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened Protocols, Products In-Reply-To: <2ppterjl6c7xhmne73sjl9bm.1379376729567@email.android.com> References: <2ppterjl6c7xhmne73sjl9bm.1379376729567@email.android.com> Message-ID: <20130917085039.7c219d58@quill> Am Tue, 17 Sep 2013 05:46:00 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > Norbert, about my saying 'participate', as you can see, > cryptographers from across academia in the UK have responded to NIST. Suresh, your characterization of the fine open letter of the UK cryptographers does not describe it correctly. http://bristolcrypto.blogspot.ch/2013/09/open-letter-from-uk-security-researchers.html The open letter does not in any way reference NIST, nor does it indicate any intention to become participants in NIST processes. Greetings, Norbert > -------- Original message -------- > From: Threatpost > Date: 09/16/2013 9:35 PM (GMT+05:30) > To: suresh at hserus.net > Subject: [New post] UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately > Weakened Protocols, Products > New post on Threatpost > > > UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened > Protocols, Products by Dennis Fisher > A group of cryptographers in the UK has published a letter that calls > on authorities in that country and the United States to conduct an > investigation to determine which security products, protocols and > standards have been deliberately weakened by the countries' > intelligence services. The letter, signed by a number of researchers > from the University of Bristol and other universities, said that the > NSA and British GCHQ "have been acting against the interests of the > public that they are meant to serve." > > The appeal comes a couple of weeks after leaked documents from the > NSA and its UK counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, > showed that the two agencies have been collaborating on projects that > give them the ability to subvert encryption protocols and also have > been working with unnamed security vendors to insert backdoors into > hardware and software products. Security experts have been debating > in recent weeks which products, standards and protocols may have been > deliberately weakened, but so far no information has been forthcoming. > > The cryptography researchers in the UK are asking the UK and U.S. > governments to reveal which ones are suspect. > > "By weakening cryptographic standards, in as yet undisclosed ways, > and by inserting weaknesses into products which we all rely on to > secure critical infrastructure, we believe that the agencies have > been acting against the interests of the public that they are meant > to serve. We find it shocking that agencies of both the US and UK > governments now stand accused of undermining the systems which > protect us. By weakening all our security so that they can listen in > to the communications of our enemies, they also weaken our security > against our potential enemies," the letter says. > > Published on Monday, the letter is signed by cryptographers from the > University of Bristol, University of London, University of > Birmingham, University of Luxembourg, University of Southampton, > University of Surrey, University of Kent, Newcastle University and > University College London. In it, the researchers call on the > relevant authorities to publicly name the products and standards that > have been weakened in order to inform users which systems they should > avoid. > > "We call on the relevant parties to reveal what systems have been > weakened so that they can be repaired, and to create a proper system > of oversight with well-defined public rules that clearly forbid > weakening the security of civilian systems and infrastructures. The > statutory Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Commons > needs to investigate this issue as a matter of urgency. In the modern > information age we all need to have complete trust in the basic > infrastructure that we all use," the letter says. > > In the weeks since the documents detailing the NSA's cryptographic > capabilities emerged, further details about exactly which protocols > the agency can attack successfully and which standards it may have > influenced have been scarce. NIST, the U.S. agency that develops > technical standards for cryptography, among other things, as denied > accusations that the NSA was able to weaken some of the NIST > standards. However, at the same time, NIST officials have issued a > recommendation that people no longer use one of the encryption > standards it previously published. > > "NIST strongly recommends that, pending the resolution of the > security concerns and the re-issuance of SP 800-90A, the > Dual_EC_DRBG, as specified in the January 2012 version of SP > 800-90A, no longer be used," the NIST statement says. > > The standard in question is an elliptic curve random bit generator, > and cryptographers have called into question its integrity in the > wake of the latest NSA revelations, mainly because its difficult to > tell how the points on the elliptic curve were determined. > > "This algorithm includes default elliptic curve points for three > elliptic curves, the provenance of which were not described. Security > researchers have highlighted the importance of generating these > elliptic curve points in a trustworthy way. This issue was identified > during the development process, and the concern was initially > addressed by including specifications for generating different points > than the default values that were provided. However, recent community > commentary has called into question the trustworthiness of these > default elliptic curve points," the NIST statement says. > > Image from Flickr photos of Elliott Brown.  > > Dennis Fisher | September 16, 2013 at 12:05 pm | URL: > http://wp.me/p3AjUX-qC1 > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 17 03:11:47 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:41:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [New post] UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened Protocols, Products In-Reply-To: <20130917085039.7c219d58@quill> References: <2ppterjl6c7xhmne73sjl9bm.1379376729567@email.android.com> <20130917085039.7c219d58@quill> Message-ID: <1412ac29bf8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Feel free to release an open letter if you wish As long as there is a meaningful and apolitical feedback produced by this caucus I couldn't care if it were sent to nist, released as an open letter or printed out on a sheet of paper, made into an origami boat and floated down the Potomac in the hope that Keith Alexander or James clapper sees it. --srs (htc one x) On 17 September 2013 12:20:39 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > Am Tue, 17 Sep 2013 05:46:00 +0530 > schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > > > Norbert, about my saying 'participate', as you can see, > > cryptographers from across academia in the UK have responded to NIST. > > Suresh, your characterization of the fine open letter of the UK > cryptographers does not describe it correctly. > > http://bristolcrypto.blogspot.ch/2013/09/open-letter-from-uk-security-researchers.html > > The open letter does not in any way reference NIST, nor does it > indicate any intention to become participants in NIST processes. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Threatpost Date: 09/16/2013 9:35 PM > (GMT+05:30) To: suresh at hserus.net Subject: [New post] UK Cryptographers > Call For Outing of Deliberately > > Weakened Protocols, Products New post on Threatpost > > > > UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened > > Protocols, Products by Dennis Fisher > > A group of cryptographers in the UK has published a letter that calls > > on authorities in that country and the United States to conduct an > > investigation to determine which security products, protocols and > > standards have been deliberately weakened by the countries' > > intelligence services. The letter, signed by a number of researchers > > from the University of Bristol and other universities, said that the > > NSA and British GCHQ "have been acting against the interests of the > > public that they are meant to serve." > > The appeal comes a couple of weeks after leaked documents from the > > NSA and its UK counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, > > showed that the two agencies have been collaborating on projects that > > give them the ability to subvert encryption protocols and also have > > been working with unnamed security vendors to insert backdoors into > > hardware and software products. Security experts have been debating > > in recent weeks which products, standards and protocols may have been > > deliberately weakened, but so far no information has been forthcoming. > > The cryptography researchers in the UK are asking the UK and U.S. > > governments to reveal which ones are suspect. > > "By weakening cryptographic standards, in as yet undisclosed ways, > > and by inserting weaknesses into products which we all rely on to > > secure critical infrastructure, we believe that the agencies have > > been acting against the interests of the public that they are meant > > to serve. We find it shocking that agencies of both the US and UK > > governments now stand accused of undermining the systems which > > protect us. By weakening all our security so that they can listen in > > to the communications of our enemies, they also weaken our security > > against our potential enemies," the letter says. > > Published on Monday, the letter is signed by cryptographers from the > > University of Bristol, University of London, University of > > Birmingham, University of Luxembourg, University of Southampton, > > University of Surrey, University of Kent, Newcastle University and > > University College London. In it, the researchers call on the > > relevant authorities to publicly name the products and standards that > > have been weakened in order to inform users which systems they should > > avoid. > > "We call on the relevant parties to reveal what systems have been > > weakened so that they can be repaired, and to create a proper system > > of oversight with well-defined public rules that clearly forbid > > weakening the security of civilian systems and infrastructures. The > > statutory Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Commons > > needs to investigate this issue as a matter of urgency. In the modern > > information age we all need to have complete trust in the basic > > infrastructure that we all use," the letter says. > > In the weeks since the documents detailing the NSA's cryptographic > > capabilities emerged, further details about exactly which protocols > > the agency can attack successfully and which standards it may have > > influenced have been scarce. NIST, the U.S. agency that develops > > technical standards for cryptography, among other things, as denied > > accusations that the NSA was able to weaken some of the NIST > > standards. However, at the same time, NIST officials have issued a > > recommendation that people no longer use one of the encryption > > standards it previously published. > > "NIST strongly recommends that, pending the resolution of the > > security concerns and the re-issuance of SP 800-90A, the > > Dual_EC_DRBG, as specified in the January 2012 version of SP > > 800-90A, no longer be used," the NIST statement says. > > The standard in question is an elliptic curve random bit generator, > > and cryptographers have called into question its integrity in the > > wake of the latest NSA revelations, mainly because its difficult to > > tell how the points on the elliptic curve were determined. > > "This algorithm includes default elliptic curve points for three > > elliptic curves, the provenance of which were not described. Security > > researchers have highlighted the importance of generating these > > elliptic curve points in a trustworthy way. This issue was identified > > during the development process, and the concern was initially > > addressed by including specifications for generating different points > > than the default values that were provided. However, recent community > > commentary has called into question the trustworthiness of these > > default elliptic curve points," the NIST statement says. > > Image from Flickr photos of Elliott Brown.  > > Dennis Fisher | September 16, 2013 at 12:05 pm | URL: > > http://wp.me/p3AjUX-qC1 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Sep 17 03:32:13 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:32:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > This is a bit of a contradiction > > 1. You +1 norbert saying that international civil society should not > participate in this process > > and > > 2. You hope that untainted top US cryptographers follow their UK > colleagues. If the UK colleagues are expected not to participate in > this process .. There is of course no contradiction between US cryptographers participating in US national processes and them at the same time following the example of UK colleagues in jointly making a clear political statement. That said, as soon as an internationally credible review process for crypto specs has been established, I would certainly hope that some US cryptographers will be participating there. > As it is, cryptographers from the USA are very active on this - and > not all of them are NSA stooges, strange as it may sound in the > paranoia laden atmosphere here. I don't think that it is paranoid to think that the percentage of US cryptographers with true independence from them US surveillance- industrial complex is probably very small. Even a tenured professor is not independent in this sense if he or she for example desires to undertake a research project for which research funding might conceivably come from such sources. This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil society”. My view is that only people and organizations are qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly independent of all industry and government interests in regard to the topic areas on which they engage. That is not to say that everyone else is “NSA stooges”. Of course that is not the case. But civil society in the above mentioned mentioned strongly independent sense, especially organizations that already have expertise in regard to Internet governance processes etc, need to realize now that having political science expertise, even together with a general understanding of the Internet, is not sufficient for ensuring that democracy has a future on this planet. With the NSA's actions, crypto specs have become a key battleground. For that reason, civil society orgs need to invest in first building up the necessary expertise for being able to competently engage in this topic area, and then in doing whatever it takes to get an internationally credible review process for crypto specs established. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Sep 17 03:53:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:23:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> Message-ID: ok that last paragraph has a tangible action item build up the necessary expertise. or get people with the necessary expertise on board, given that crypto is the sort of thing that normal security practitioners will generally have an applied knowledge of, rather than the indepth knowledge of cryptography required to analyze this issue. --srs (iPad) On 17-Sep-2013, at 13:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> This is a bit of a contradiction >> >> 1. You +1 norbert saying that international civil society should not >> participate in this process >> >> and >> >> 2. You hope that untainted top US cryptographers follow their UK >> colleagues. If the UK colleagues are expected not to participate in >> this process .. > > There is of course no contradiction between US cryptographers > participating in US national processes and them at the same time > following the example of UK colleagues in jointly making a clear > political statement. > > That said, as soon as an internationally credible review process > for crypto specs has been established, I would certainly hope that > some US cryptographers will be participating there. > >> As it is, cryptographers from the USA are very active on this - and >> not all of them are NSA stooges, strange as it may sound in the >> paranoia laden atmosphere here. > > I don't think that it is paranoid to think that the percentage of US > cryptographers with true independence from them US surveillance- > industrial complex is probably very small. > > Even a tenured professor is not independent in this sense if he or she > for example desires to undertake a research project for which research > funding might conceivably come from such sources. > > This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil > society”. My view is that only people and organizations are qualified > to be considered “civil society” who are truly independent of all > industry and government interests in regard to the topic areas on > which they engage. > > That is not to say that everyone else is “NSA stooges”. Of course that > is not the case. > > But civil society in the above mentioned mentioned strongly independent > sense, especially organizations that already have expertise in regard > to Internet governance processes etc, need to realize now that having > political science expertise, even together with a general understanding > of the Internet, is not sufficient for ensuring that democracy has a > future on this planet. > > With the NSA's actions, crypto specs have become a key battleground. > > For that reason, civil society orgs need to invest in first building up > the necessary expertise for being able to competently engage in this > topic area, and then in doing whatever it takes to get an internationally > credible review process for crypto specs established. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Sep 17 05:31:41 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:31:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> Message-ID: <20130917113141.7c8fa95b@quill> I wholeheartedly agree with Suresh here. The expertise which is required for this is of a kind that no-one can acquire without spending significant time on learning not only the math which underlies these algorithms and at least the basics of the theory of computational complexity, but also the use of various techniques of cryptoanalysis. Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:23:41 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > ok that last paragraph has a tangible action item > > build up the necessary expertise. or get people with the necessary > expertise on board, given that crypto is the sort of thing that > normal security practitioners will generally have an applied > knowledge of, rather than the indepth knowledge of cryptography > required to analyze this issue. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Sep-2013, at 13:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> This is a bit of a contradiction > >> > >> 1. You +1 norbert saying that international civil society should > >> not participate in this process > >> > >> and > >> > >> 2. You hope that untainted top US cryptographers follow their UK > >> colleagues. If the UK colleagues are expected not to participate > >> in this process .. > > > > There is of course no contradiction between US cryptographers > > participating in US national processes and them at the same time > > following the example of UK colleagues in jointly making a clear > > political statement. > > > > That said, as soon as an internationally credible review process > > for crypto specs has been established, I would certainly hope that > > some US cryptographers will be participating there. > > > >> As it is, cryptographers from the USA are very active on this - and > >> not all of them are NSA stooges, strange as it may sound in the > >> paranoia laden atmosphere here. > > > > I don't think that it is paranoid to think that the percentage of US > > cryptographers with true independence from them US surveillance- > > industrial complex is probably very small. > > > > Even a tenured professor is not independent in this sense if he or > > she for example desires to undertake a research project for which > > research funding might conceivably come from such sources. > > > > This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil > > society”. My view is that only people and organizations are > > qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly > > independent of all industry and government interests in regard to > > the topic areas on which they engage. > > > > That is not to say that everyone else is “NSA stooges”. Of course > > that is not the case. > > > > But civil society in the above mentioned mentioned strongly > > independent sense, especially organizations that already have > > expertise in regard to Internet governance processes etc, need to > > realize now that having political science expertise, even together > > with a general understanding of the Internet, is not sufficient for > > ensuring that democracy has a future on this planet. > > > > With the NSA's actions, crypto specs have become a key battleground. > > > > For that reason, civil society orgs need to invest in first > > building up the necessary expertise for being able to competently > > engage in this topic area, and then in doing whatever it takes to > > get an internationally credible review process for crypto specs > > established. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the > > person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you > > accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Sep 17 10:28:13 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:28:13 +0300 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> Message-ID: <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil > society”. My view is that only people and organizations are qualified > to be considered “civil society” who are truly independent of all > industry and government interests in regard to the topic areas on > which they engage. > This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable definition. What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry -- because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very industry should develop. The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals. Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it? For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not "government". Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind is automatically excluded from the "civil society". Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance" should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in "Internet Governance". Pretty complex, eh? :-) Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 17 10:33:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 20:03:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> Message-ID: This definition does exclude nearly all except a subset of politically active individuals and NGOs from being considered civil society, I agree with daniel. --srs (iPad) On 17-Sep-2013, at 19:58, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil >> society”. My view is that only people and organizations are qualified >> to be considered “civil society” who are truly independent of all >> industry and government interests in regard to the topic areas on >> which they engage. >> > > This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable definition. > > What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry -- because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very industry should develop. > > The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals. > > Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it? > > For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not "government". Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind is automatically excluded from the "civil society". > > Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance" should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in "Internet Governance". > > Pretty complex, eh? :-) > > Daniel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Sep 17 10:36:13 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:36:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <14126a8aad0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.n et> References: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> <20130916130337.7a396f89@quill> <141268d4718.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130916135924.5baf7052@quill> <14126a8aad0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Sep 17 12:58:16 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 09:58:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <20130917113141.7c8fa95b@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <20130917113141.7c8fa95b@quill> Message-ID: <015401ceb3c7$21232be0$636983a0$@gmail.com> While I agree that there is a significant need for CS expertise in the black arts of cryptography etc.etc. I'm not sure that I agree with the implication that these skills in themselves will somehow ensure freedom from/freedom within surveillance... Whatever response it is possible to ultimately achieve re: the Snowden/NSA revelations the final result needs to be one that satisfies/is trustworthy (is worthy for trust) at the political/normative/popular level if we are to move away from a state of surveillance/surveillance state. To do this some type of transparent/accountable political superstructure needs to be in place, if nothing else than to act as a translator/buffer between the technical folks and the public and to ensure some degree of transparency/accountability of their (technical) activities. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:32 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards I wholeheartedly agree with Suresh here. The expertise which is required for this is of a kind that no-one can acquire without spending significant time on learning not only the math which underlies these algorithms and at least the basics of the theory of computational complexity, but also the use of various techniques of cryptoanalysis. Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:23:41 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > ok that last paragraph has a tangible action item > > build up the necessary expertise. or get people with the necessary > expertise on board, given that crypto is the sort of thing that normal > security practitioners will generally have an applied knowledge of, > rather than the indepth knowledge of cryptography required to analyze > this issue. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Sep-2013, at 13:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> This is a bit of a contradiction > >> > >> 1. You +1 norbert saying that international civil society should > >> not participate in this process > >> > >> and > >> > >> 2. You hope that untainted top US cryptographers follow their UK > >> colleagues. If the UK colleagues are expected not to participate > >> in this process .. > > > > There is of course no contradiction between US cryptographers > > participating in US national processes and them at the same time > > following the example of UK colleagues in jointly making a clear > > political statement. > > > > That said, as soon as an internationally credible review process for > > crypto specs has been established, I would certainly hope that some > > US cryptographers will be participating there. > > > >> As it is, cryptographers from the USA are very active on this - and > >> not all of them are NSA stooges, strange as it may sound in the > >> paranoia laden atmosphere here. > > > > I don't think that it is paranoid to think that the percentage of US > > cryptographers with true independence from them US surveillance- > > industrial complex is probably very small. > > > > Even a tenured professor is not independent in this sense if he or > > she for example desires to undertake a research project for which > > research funding might conceivably come from such sources. > > > > This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil > > society”. My view is that only people and organizations are > > qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly independent > > of all industry and government interests in regard to the topic > > areas on which they engage. > > > > That is not to say that everyone else is “NSA stooges”. Of course > > that is not the case. > > > > But civil society in the above mentioned mentioned strongly > > independent sense, especially organizations that already have > > expertise in regard to Internet governance processes etc, need to > > realize now that having political science expertise, even together > > with a general understanding of the Internet, is not sufficient for > > ensuring that democracy has a future on this planet. > > > > With the NSA's actions, crypto specs have become a key battleground. > > > > For that reason, civil society orgs need to invest in first building > > up the necessary expertise for being able to competently engage in > > this topic area, and then in doing whatever it takes to get an > > internationally credible review process for crypto specs > > established. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the > > person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you > > accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Sep 17 13:22:58 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:22:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> Daniel Kalchev wrote: > On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil > > society”. My view is that only people and organizations are > > qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly > > independent of all industry and government interests in regard to > > the topic areas on which they engage. > > > > This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable > definition. > > What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in > organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field > (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry -- > because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very > industry should develop. Huh??? I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested that “civil society” should decide single-handedly to make the rules for how “industry should develop”! I'm well aware that most people use a much broader definition of “civil society”, and in fact I've used a broad definition for a long time myself. Somewhat recently I've started thinking more deeply about how multistakeholder processes can be improved, and in that context I've come to the conclusion that it will be best to use a model of stakeholder categories that that has three relatively strictly defined stakeholder categories (“government”, “civil society”, “private sector”) plus one broad catch-all “multi/other” category for all people and organizations who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the first three categories. In this model, for any particular issue area, - “government” is reserved for official representatives of governmental or intergovernmental institutions, i.e. people who are officially authorized to engage in the discourse in the name of such an institution; - “civil society” is reserved for individuals and groups who are independent of government and industry interests in the topic areas in which they engage; - “private sector” is reserved for for official representatives of businesses and other private sector institutions that are able to directly act as change agents in regard to the topics area under consideration; - “multi/other” is the broad category of all people and organizations who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the first three categories. The goal of such a stakeholder categorization is to help recognize (and hopefully then rectify) situations where the membership of a committee, or a panel, etc, are badly balanced. > The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that > particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals. > > Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity > that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals > (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the > "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved > in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges > there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it? > > For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not > "government". So in your understanding, businesses are part of "civil society" as long as they're not state owned??? > Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a > member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind > is automatically excluded from the "civil society". > > Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance" > should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in > "Internet Governance". > > Pretty complex, eh? :-) The model which I'm proposing avoids this kind nonwellfoundedness paradox. More importantly, the model that I'm proposing avoids defining “civil society” so broadly that the experiences and concerns which are shared among the members of “civil society” are simply shared because we are all humans living on the same planet. The broad definitions of “civil society” do not result in “civil society” being a category with useful meaning. If multistakeholder processes are based on badly defined stakeholder categories, then I'm sure that at least in the long run, no governance structure that relies on such processes can be viable. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Sep 17 14:21:45 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:21:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> Message-ID: <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> On 17.09.2013, at 20:22, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil >>> society”. My view is that only people and organizations are >>> qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly >>> independent of all industry and government interests in regard to >>> the topic areas on which they engage. >>> >> >> This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable >> definition. >> >> What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in >> organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field >> (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry -- >> because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very >> industry should develop. > > Huh??? > > I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested that “civil society” should > decide single-handedly to make the rules for how “industry should > develop”! I did not want to imply that. However, we should properly name the subjects. > Somewhat recently I've started thinking more deeply about how > multistakeholder processes can be improved, and in that context I've > come to the conclusion that it will be best to use a model of > stakeholder categories that that has three relatively strictly defined > stakeholder categories (“government”, “civil society”, “private > sector”) plus one broad catch-all “multi/other” category for all > people and organizations who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the > first three categories. My classification would be a bit different (I too, think from time to time how to best define these categories). What I have come to might certainly annoy some, because it's more down to Earth. I too, envision three categories, such as: 1. "Those who know and do it": this is perhaps what you define as "private sector", but I do not necessarily limit it to commercial enterprises, because I believe such definition would be wrong. "those who know and do" are the only people who can provide insights on why things are done this way, how they can be (realistically) changed and which of the ideas other constituencies have are not practical to implement. (for various reasons) 2. "Those who want": these are generally what you define as "civil society" in that they do not actually "do" anything of what they suggest/preach, but who in fact insist something be done certain way (for whatever "public benefit" reasons). The role of this constituency is to provide input for the others on what actually the public wants. 3. "Those who regulate/redistribute": this is what you define as "government". The primary purpose for any government to exists is to regulate and re-distribute the "public" wealth. The role of this constituency in my opinion is in providing the appropriate legal and other framework/environment so that those who want and those who can -- do their things. Now, thing is, these constituencies always overlap. There is certainly a population out of the "know/do" community that is also part of the "want" community and/or the "government" community. The same with others. This is primarily where our views of the working setup differ. > > In this model, for any particular issue area, > > - “government” is reserved for official representatives of governmental > or intergovernmental institutions, i.e. people who are officially > authorized to engage in the discourse in the name of such an > institution; Here, the problem is that this ignores the reality. Let's take for example an Internet registry. The registry by itself is an enterprise by your definition, because it is the party who knows and does things. However, the registry is also the "government" of the particular domain in that it defines, sets and enforces the rules in the domain. Models to limit that "power" have been experimented, but experience shows they are not actually successful. I see your view of "government" is very narrow. But if so, then the "government" category you describe actually has nothing to do with Internet. Or, if it does apply to Internet, it should also apply to say, the bakery business. After all, everyone uses the services of the bakeries. Since government types almost never know anything about technology, this is the first category of theorists. > - “civil society” is reserved for individuals and groups who > are independent of government and industry interests in the topic > areas in which they engage; There is no such thing as "independent". Actually, a colleague of mine provided the following possible definition: "I am independent, because nothing depends on me". As it stands, and given my previous comment, this is perhaps the "independence" part of the "civil society". The second category of theorists. Again, if they are independent, what their credentials would be? "Former IBM employee" with the presumption to understand IBM technology? Or "Former ICANN director" with the presumption of understanding ICANN processes? Or "Former ISP engineer" with the presumption that they know technology, etc. The problem here is "former". There might be many reasons for this, from "fired" to "bored and no longer interested". How would these people contribute in any meaningful way? In that they now have enough free time to spare on meetings and travel? > - “private sector” is reserved for for official representatives of > businesses and other private sector institutions that are able to > directly act as change agents in regard to the topics area under > consideration; Now, you have me completely lost! If you say the "private sector" is the "official representatives of the commercial entities", then apparently I misunderstood you and your definition of "private sector" severely differs from mine, because in mine the "official representative" is more of a "government" kind person. Those "official representative" people almost never have any serious expertise in the field their business operates and almost always in the management. Therefore they too, like the "civil society" have nothing to contribute to the practical aspects of the governance. So, a third category of theorists. > - “multi/other” is the broad category of all people and organizations > who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the first three categories. I don't know who you put here, but I don't see a single constituency in your lineup, where the practicing experts, who are the only party that can *do* something, are. > > The goal of such a stakeholder categorization is to help recognize (and > hopefully then rectify) situations where the membership of a committee, > or a panel, etc, are badly balanced. Still, the "those who know and those who can" part is missing. As history shows, any committee that lacks this component inevitably produces garbage, that cannot be implemented and is therefore ignored. > >> The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that >> particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals. >> >> Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity >> that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals >> (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the >> "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved >> in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges >> there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it? >> >> For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not >> "government". > > So in your understanding, businesses are part of "civil society" as > long as they're not state owned??? In my country, the constitution says that all parties (individuals, organizations, government) are equal. I therefore make no distinction who the owner is. In my view, only the business is the place where the people who "do" things are. Because this is why businesses exists: to "do" things and earn money. > >> Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a >> member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind >> is automatically excluded from the "civil society". >> >> Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance" >> should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in >> "Internet Governance". >> >> Pretty complex, eh? :-) > > The model which I'm proposing avoids this kind nonwellfoundedness > paradox. > > More importantly, the model that I'm proposing avoids defining “civil > society” so broadly that the experiences and concerns which are > shared among the members of “civil society” are simply shared because > we are all humans living on the same planet. > > The broad definitions of “civil society” do not result in “civil > society” being a category with useful meaning. If multistakeholder > processes are based on badly defined stakeholder categories, then I'm > sure that at least in the long run, no governance structure that relies > on such processes can be viable. See my proposal above. I would rather dispose of "civil society" as a category. I understand it will annoy a lot of people, but still.. One of the problems with "civil society" used in this definition is that not everyone in the world has English as their native language. Translating an expression often is not straightforward and involves the difference in culture and perception between the users of the various languages. A not so fancy definition might actually do the job better. Unfortunately, I don't believe a "not fancy enough" definition would be accepted by the "government" types.. Daniel > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 17 14:37:52 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:37:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> Message-ID: Norbert, On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > The broad definitions of “civil society” do not result in “civil > society” being a category with useful meaning. If multistakeholder > processes are based on badly defined stakeholder categories, then I'm > sure that at least in the long run, no governance structure that relies > on such processes can be viable. > I'm not sure that stakeholder categories are even neccesary. We don't have them in the RIR world nor in the IETF, the two most often cited examples of IG processes that work well! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 17 14:47:16 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:47:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: References: <52354507.2050404@itforchange.net> <26087451-AB06-4DD9-A80B-51F53493C2F4@hserus.net> <20130916130337.7a396f89@quill> <141268d4718.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130916135924.5baf7052@quill> <14126a8aad0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: jefsey, On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:36 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > > > 1. As a result, IEEE, W3C, ISOC (and its IETF and IAB affiliates), as well > as the OpenStand signatories, are no longer striving for any of humanity's > "common good" > incorrect, see slide 11 on http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/downloads/publications/RIPE-Roundtable-IETF-201309.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Sep 17 20:12:52 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 02:12:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Peruvian Legislators File Motion Seeking Public Debate On Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Message-ID: The proposed motion notes that the intellectual property provisions proposed by the United States would “impose serious limits to intellectual and artistic creation as well as technological innovation putting at risk freedom of expression, privacy and the capacity to innovate of all Peruvians… (more) http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/09/16/infojustice-peruvian-legislators-file-motion-seeking-public-debate-on-trans-pacific-partnership/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts original in spanish ... http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Moci%C3%B3n-TPP.pdf 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Sep 17 21:22:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:52:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) Message-ID: Civil society is necessarily amorphous. Trying to force it into a definition will lead to its just not existing.  And civil society consensus is a mythical beast to rival the unicorn.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Daniel Kalchev Date: 09/17/2013 11:51 PM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) On 17.09.2013, at 20:22, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil >>> society”. My view is that only people and organizations are >>> qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly >>> independent of all industry and government interests in regard to >>> the topic areas on which they engage. >>> >> >> This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable >> definition. >> >> What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in >> organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field >> (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry -- >> because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very >> industry should develop. > > Huh??? > > I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested that “civil society” should > decide single-handedly to make the rules for how “industry should > develop”! I did not want to imply that. However, we should properly name the subjects. > Somewhat recently I've started thinking more deeply about how > multistakeholder processes can be improved, and in that context I've > come to the conclusion that it will be best to use a model of > stakeholder categories that that has three relatively strictly defined > stakeholder categories (“government”, “civil society”, “private > sector”) plus one broad catch-all “multi/other” category for all > people and organizations who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the > first three categories. My classification would be a bit different (I too, think from time to time how to best define these categories). What I have come to might certainly annoy some, because it's more down to Earth. I too, envision three categories, such as: 1. "Those who know and do it": this is perhaps what you define as "private sector", but I do not necessarily limit it to commercial enterprises, because I believe such definition would be wrong. "those who know and do" are the only people who can provide insights on why things are done this way, how they can be (realistically) changed and which of the ideas other constituencies have are not practical to implement. (for various reasons) 2. "Those who want": these are generally what you define as "civil society" in that they do not actually "do" anything of what they suggest/preach, but who in fact insist something be done certain way (for whatever "public benefit" reasons). The role of this constituency is to provide input for the others on what actually the public wants. 3. "Those who regulate/redistribute": this is what you define as "government". The primary purpose for any government to exists is to regulate and re-distribute the "public" wealth. The role of this constituency in my opinion is in providing the appropriate legal and other framework/environment so that those who want and those who can -- do their things. Now, thing is, these constituencies always overlap. There is certainly a population out of the "know/do" community that is also part of the "want" community and/or the "government" community. The same with others. This is primarily where our views of the working setup differ. > > In this model, for any particular issue area, > > - “government” is reserved for official representatives of governmental >  or intergovernmental institutions, i.e. people who are officially >  authorized to engage in the discourse in the name of such an >  institution; Here, the problem is that this ignores the reality. Let's take for example an Internet registry. The registry by itself is an enterprise by your definition, because it is the party who knows and does things. However, the registry is also the "government" of the particular domain in that it defines, sets and enforces the rules in the domain. Models to limit that "power" have been experimented, but experience shows they are not actually successful. I see your view of "government" is very narrow. But if so, then the "government" category you describe actually has nothing to do with Internet. Or, if it does apply to Internet, it should also apply to say, the bakery business. After all, everyone uses the services of the bakeries. Since government types almost never know anything about technology, this is the first category of theorists. > - “civil society” is reserved for individuals and groups who >  are independent of government and industry interests in the topic >  areas in which they engage; There is no such thing as "independent". Actually, a colleague of mine provided the following possible definition: "I am independent, because nothing depends on me". As it stands, and given my previous comment, this is perhaps the "independence" part of the "civil society". The second category of theorists. Again, if they are independent, what their credentials would be? "Former IBM employee" with the presumption to understand IBM technology? Or "Former ICANN director" with the presumption of understanding ICANN processes? Or "Former ISP engineer" with the presumption that they know technology, etc. The problem here is "former". There might be many reasons for this, from "fired" to "bored and no longer interested". How would these people contribute in any meaningful way? In that they now have enough free time to spare on meetings and travel? > - “private sector” is reserved for for official representatives of >  businesses and other private sector institutions that are able to >  directly act as change agents in regard to the topics area under >  consideration; Now, you have me completely lost! If you say the "private sector" is the "official representatives of the commercial entities", then apparently I misunderstood you and your definition of "private sector" severely differs from mine, because in mine the "official representative" is more of a "government" kind person. Those "official representative" people almost never have any serious expertise in the field their business operates and almost always in the management. Therefore they too, like the "civil society" have nothing to contribute to the practical aspects of the governance. So, a third category of theorists. > - “multi/other” is the broad category of all people and organizations >  who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the first three categories. I don't know who you put here, but I don't see a single constituency in your lineup, where the practicing experts, who are the only party that can *do* something, are. > > The goal of such a stakeholder categorization is to help recognize (and > hopefully then rectify) situations where the membership of a committee, > or a panel, etc, are badly balanced. Still, the "those who know and those who can" part is missing. As history shows, any committee that lacks this component inevitably produces garbage, that cannot be implemented and is therefore ignored. > >> The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that >> particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals. >> >> Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity >> that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals >> (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the >> "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved >> in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges >> there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it? >> >> For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not >> "government". > > So in your understanding, businesses are part of "civil society" as > long as they're not state owned??? In my country, the constitution says that all parties (individuals, organizations, government) are equal. I therefore make no distinction who the owner is. In my view, only the business is the place where the people who "do" things are. Because this is why businesses exists: to "do" things and earn money. > >> Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a >> member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind >> is automatically excluded from the "civil society". >> >> Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance" >> should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in >> "Internet Governance". >> >> Pretty complex, eh? :-) > > The model which I'm proposing avoids this kind nonwellfoundedness > paradox. > > More importantly, the model that I'm proposing avoids defining “civil > society” so broadly that the experiences and concerns which are > shared among the members of “civil society” are simply shared because > we are all humans living on the same planet. > > The broad definitions of “civil society” do not result in “civil > society” being a category with useful meaning. If multistakeholder > processes are based on badly defined stakeholder categories, then I'm > sure that at least in the long run, no governance structure that relies > on such processes can be viable. See my proposal above. I would rather dispose of "civil society" as a category. I understand it will annoy a lot of people, but still.. One of the problems with "civil society" used in this definition is that not everyone in the world has English as their native language. Translating an expression often is not straightforward and involves the difference in culture and perception between the users of the various languages. A not so fancy definition might actually do the job better. Unfortunately, I don't believe a "not fancy enough" definition would be accepted by the "government" types.. Daniel > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Sep 17 21:26:30 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:56:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards Message-ID: Oversight and restrictions on how such technology is used are of course essential and someone with a legal background could definitely approach this issue from that angle.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 09/17/2013 10:28 PM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,'Norbert Bollow' Subject: RE: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards While I agree that there is a significant need for CS expertise in the black arts of cryptography etc.etc. I'm not sure that I agree with the implication that these skills in themselves will somehow ensure freedom from/freedom within surveillance... Whatever response it is possible to ultimately achieve re: the Snowden/NSA revelations the final result needs to be one that satisfies/is trustworthy (is worthy for trust) at the political/normative/popular level if we are to move away from a state of surveillance/surveillance state. To do this some type of transparent/accountable political superstructure needs to be in place, if nothing else than to act as a translator/buffer between the technical folks and the public and to ensure some degree of transparency/accountability of their (technical) activities. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:32 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards I wholeheartedly agree with Suresh here. The expertise which is required for this is of a kind that no-one can acquire without spending significant time on learning not only the math which underlies these algorithms and at least the basics of the theory of computational complexity, but also the use of various techniques of cryptoanalysis. Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:23:41 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > ok that last paragraph has a tangible action item > > build up the necessary expertise. or get people with the necessary > expertise on board, given that crypto is the sort of thing that normal > security practitioners will generally have an applied knowledge of, > rather than the indepth knowledge of cryptography required to analyze > this issue. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Sep-2013, at 13:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> This is a bit of a contradiction > >> > >> 1. You +1 norbert saying that international civil society should > >> not participate in this process > >> > >> and > >> > >> 2. You hope that untainted top US cryptographers follow their UK > >> colleagues.  If the UK colleagues are expected not to participate > >> in this process .. > > > > There is of course no contradiction between US cryptographers > > participating in US national processes and them at the same time > > following the example of UK colleagues in jointly making a clear > > political statement. > > > > That said, as soon as an internationally credible review process for > > crypto specs has been established, I would certainly hope that some > > US cryptographers will be participating there. > > > >> As it is, cryptographers from the USA are very active on this - and > >> not all of them are NSA stooges, strange as it may sound in the > >> paranoia laden atmosphere here. > > > > I don't think that it is paranoid to think that the percentage of US > > cryptographers with true independence from them US surveillance- > > industrial complex is probably very small. > > > > Even a tenured professor is not independent in this sense if he or > > she for example desires to undertake a research project for which > > research funding might conceivably come from such sources. > > > > This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil > > society”. My view is that only people and organizations are > > qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly independent > > of all industry and government interests in regard to the topic > > areas on which they engage. > > > > That is not to say that everyone else is “NSA stooges”. Of course > > that is not the case. > > > > But civil society in the above mentioned mentioned strongly > > independent sense, especially organizations that already have > > expertise in regard to Internet governance processes etc, need to > > realize now that having political science expertise, even together > > with a general understanding of the Internet, is not sufficient for > > ensuring that democracy has a future on this planet. > > > > With the NSA's actions, crypto specs have become a key battleground. > > > > For that reason, civil society orgs need to invest in first building > > up the necessary expertise for being able to competently engage in > > this topic area, and then in doing whatever it takes to get an > > internationally credible review process for crypto specs > > established. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the > > person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you > > accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Sep 17 22:33:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:03:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Lovely article on network neutrality Message-ID: Looks like people on both sides of this debate should probably consign it to history, it has been beaten to death often enough  for it to have moved far out of touch with ground reality.  There is more than a smidgen of truth in this argument  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/17/5-things-neither-side-of-the-broadband-debate-wants-to-admit/?print=1 --srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Sep 17 22:43:22 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:43:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Norbert, When I served in the IGF MAG as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part of a civil society. In fact, my personal preferences more often resonate with the sentiments of organized civil society. And we had the general agreement that those who serve on the MAG would be chosen precisely for that quality, i.e. that they can reach out to multiple constituencies and interest groups, that they do not merely represent one particular viewpoint but can synthesize and moderate the various viewpoints of the constituencies to which they are affiliated one way or the other. If you wish to exclude people like myself from your definition of civil society, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Just like yourself, I am a user of the Internet, just like yourself, I have all the same interests in having my civil and human rights, my privacy and my personal data protected. And I'm also interested in not only looking at myself, but in seeing this extended as a general principle, in the best Kantian categorical imperative sort-of way. Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral conscience. And I do not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of the company just by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that is involved in laying the physical underpinning of the Internet. There are equally people who serve in government who have the same characteristics and who would rightfully have a claim to belong to civil society. Please remember that some people may have chosen to work in a particular environment (business, government, academia etc) because they felt that their chance of influencing business practices or government regulations or academic research and teaching was best achieved by working from within those institutions. Which does not mean to imply that those who have chosen to do so have done a disservice to the organizations work for or that they may have covertly been disloyal to them. And please don't forget those either who have over the years wandered between different stakeholder groups, like Bertrand, who would be excluded by your very definition from the stakeholder group he helped to create. I think you may not need a definition at all. If you think you need a way to choose who officially "speaks" for civil society as a civil society representative, then let the individual case be decided by a common vote amongst those who participate in the debate. They will know who exhibits the traits by which they will want to be represented: fairness, equality, transparency, ..... Best regards Peter On 17.09.2013, at 20:21, Daniel Kalchev wrote: On 17.09.2013, at 20:22, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil >>> society”. My view is that only people and organizations are >>> qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly >>> independent of all industry and government interests in regard to >>> the topic areas on which they engage. >> >> This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable >> definition. >> >> What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in >> organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field >> (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry -- >> because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very >> industry should develop. > > Huh??? > > I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested that “civil society” should > decide single-handedly to make the rules for how “industry should > develop”! I did not want to imply that. However, we should properly name the subjects. > Somewhat recently I've started thinking more deeply about how > multistakeholder processes can be improved, and in that context I've > come to the conclusion that it will be best to use a model of > stakeholder categories that that has three relatively strictly defined > stakeholder categories (“government”, “civil society”, “private > sector”) plus one broad catch-all “multi/other” category for all > people and organizations who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the > first three categories. My classification would be a bit different (I too, think from time to time how to best define these categories). What I have come to might certainly annoy some, because it's more down to Earth. I too, envision three categories, such as: 1. "Those who know and do it": this is perhaps what you define as "private sector", but I do not necessarily limit it to commercial enterprises, because I believe such definition would be wrong. "those who know and do" are the only people who can provide insights on why things are done this way, how they can be (realistically) changed and which of the ideas other constituencies have are not practical to implement. (for various reasons) 2. "Those who want": these are generally what you define as "civil society" in that they do not actually "do" anything of what they suggest/preach, but who in fact insist something be done certain way (for whatever "public benefit" reasons). The role of this constituency is to provide input for the others on what actually the public wants. 3. "Those who regulate/redistribute": this is what you define as "government". The primary purpose for any government to exists is to regulate and re-distribute the "public" wealth. The role of this constituency in my opinion is in providing the appropriate legal and other framework/environment so that those who want and those who can -- do their things. Now, thing is, these constituencies always overlap. There is certainly a population out of the "know/do" community that is also part of the "want" community and/or the "government" community. The same with others. This is primarily where our views of the working setup differ. > > In this model, for any particular issue area, > > - “government” is reserved for official representatives of governmental > or intergovernmental institutions, i.e. people who are officially > authorized to engage in the discourse in the name of such an > institution; Here, the problem is that this ignores the reality. Let's take for example an Internet registry. The registry by itself is an enterprise by your definition, because it is the party who knows and does things. However, the registry is also the "government" of the particular domain in that it defines, sets and enforces the rules in the domain. Models to limit that "power" have been experimented, but experience shows they are not actually successful. I see your view of "government" is very narrow. But if so, then the "government" category you describe actually has nothing to do with Internet. Or, if it does apply to Internet, it should also apply to say, the bakery business. After all, everyone uses the services of the bakeries. Since government types almost never know anything about technology, this is the first category of theorists. > - “civil society” is reserved for individuals and groups who > are independent of government and industry interests in the topic > areas in which they engage; There is no such thing as "independent". Actually, a colleague of mine provided the following possible definition: "I am independent, because nothing depends on me". As it stands, and given my previous comment, this is perhaps the "independence" part of the "civil society". The second category of theorists. Again, if they are independent, what their credentials would be? "Former IBM employee" with the presumption to understand IBM technology? Or "Former ICANN director" with the presumption of understanding ICANN processes? Or "Former ISP engineer" with the presumption that they know technology, etc. The problem here is "former". There might be many reasons for this, from "fired" to "bored and no longer interested". How would these people contribute in any meaningful way? In that they now have enough free time to spare on meetings and travel? > - “private sector” is reserved for for official representatives of > businesses and other private sector institutions that are able to > directly act as change agents in regard to the topics area under > consideration; Now, you have me completely lost! If you say the "private sector" is the "official representatives of the commercial entities", then apparently I misunderstood you and your definition of "private sector" severely differs from mine, because in mine the "official representative" is more of a "government" kind person. Those "official representative" people almost never have any serious expertise in the field their business operates and almost always in the management. Therefore they too, like the "civil society" have nothing to contribute to the practical aspects of the governance. So, a third category of theorists. > - “multi/other” is the broad category of all people and organizations > who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the first three categories. I don't know who you put here, but I don't see a single constituency in your lineup, where the practicing experts, who are the only party that can *do* something, are. > > The goal of such a stakeholder categorization is to help recognize (and > hopefully then rectify) situations where the membership of a committee, > or a panel, etc, are badly balanced. Still, the "those who know and those who can" part is missing. As history shows, any committee that lacks this component inevitably produces garbage, that cannot be implemented and is therefore ignored. > >> The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that >> particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals. >> >> Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity >> that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals >> (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the >> "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved >> in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges >> there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it? >> >> For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not >> "government". > > So in your understanding, businesses are part of "civil society" as > long as they're not state owned??? In my country, the constitution says that all parties (individuals, organizations, government) are equal. I therefore make no distinction who the owner is. In my view, only the business is the place where the people who "do" things are. Because this is why businesses exists: to "do" things and earn money. > >> Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a >> member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind >> is automatically excluded from the "civil society". >> >> Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance" >> should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in >> "Internet Governance". >> >> Pretty complex, eh? :-) > > The model which I'm proposing avoids this kind nonwellfoundedness > paradox. > > More importantly, the model that I'm proposing avoids defining “civil > society” so broadly that the experiences and concerns which are > shared among the members of “civil society” are simply shared because > we are all humans living on the same planet. > > The broad definitions of “civil society” do not result in “civil > society” being a category with useful meaning. If multistakeholder > processes are based on badly defined stakeholder categories, then I'm > sure that at least in the long run, no governance structure that relies > on such processes can be viable. See my proposal above. I would rather dispose of "civil society" as a category. I understand it will annoy a lot of people, but still.. One of the problems with "civil society" used in this definition is that not everyone in the world has English as their native language. Translating an expression often is not straightforward and involves the difference in culture and perception between the users of the various languages. A not so fancy definition might actually do the job better. Unfortunately, I don't believe a "not fancy enough" definition would be accepted by the "government" types.. Daniel > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Tue Sep 17 23:18:51 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:18:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Peter makes a number of excellent point below, and I thank him for making the effort to do it. Is it the case that the charter of the IGC excludes individuals having any business or government connections? If so, then maybe some resignations are in order, and there should be a stringent non-conflict test to participate in these discussions. If not, then the definition of this local area of civil society discussion should reflect its charter rather than a purist definition of civil society participants based upon the exclusion of all other sectoral influences. I think that Peter's post points out the difficulty of allying oneself with the values of and involvement with only one sector, or stakeholder group. The complexity of human activity is too great for that. George On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Norbert, > > When I served in the IGF MAG as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part of a civil society. In fact, my personal preferences more often resonate with the sentiments of organized civil society. And we had the general agreement that those who serve on the MAG would be chosen precisely for that quality, i.e. that they can reach out to multiple constituencies and interest groups, that they do not merely represent one particular viewpoint but can synthesize and moderate the various viewpoints of the constituencies to which they are affiliated one way or the other. > > If you wish to exclude people like myself from your definition of civil society, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Just like yourself, I am a user of the Internet, just like yourself, I have all the same interests in having my civil and human rights, my privacy and my personal data protected. And I'm also interested in not only looking at myself, but in seeing this extended as a general principle, in the best Kantian categorical imperative sort-of way. > > Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral conscience. And I do not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of the company just by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that is involved in laying the physical underpinning of the Internet. > > There are equally people who serve in government who have the same characteristics and who would rightfully have a claim to belong to civil society. > > Please remember that some people may have chosen to work in a particular environment (business, government, academia etc) because they felt that their chance of influencing business practices or government regulations or academic research and teaching was best achieved by working from within those institutions. Which does not mean to imply that those who have chosen to do so have done a disservice to the organizations work for or that they may have covertly been disloyal to them. > > And please don't forget those either who have over the years wandered between different stakeholder groups, like Bertrand, who would be excluded by your very definition from the stakeholder group he helped to create. > > I think you may not need a definition at all. If you think you need a way to choose who officially "speaks" for civil society as a civil society representative, then let the individual case be decided by a common vote amongst those who participate in the debate. They will know who exhibits the traits by which they will want to be represented: fairness, equality, transparency, ..... > > Best regards > > Peter > > On 17.09.2013, at 20:21, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 17.09.2013, at 20:22, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >>> On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>> This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil >>>> society”. My view is that only people and organizations are >>>> qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly >>>> independent of all industry and government interests in regard to >>>> the topic areas on which they engage. >>> >>> This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable >>> definition. >>> >>> What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in >>> organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field >>> (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry -- >>> because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very >>> industry should develop. >> >> Huh??? >> >> I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested that “civil society” should >> decide single-handedly to make the rules for how “industry should >> develop”! > > I did not want to imply that. However, we should properly name the subjects. > >> Somewhat recently I've started thinking more deeply about how >> multistakeholder processes can be improved, and in that context I've >> come to the conclusion that it will be best to use a model of >> stakeholder categories that that has three relatively strictly defined >> stakeholder categories (“government”, “civil society”, “private >> sector”) plus one broad catch-all “multi/other” category for all >> people and organizations who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the >> first three categories. > > My classification would be a bit different (I too, think from time to time how to best define these categories). What I have come to might certainly annoy some, because it's more down to Earth. I too, envision three categories, such as: > > 1. "Those who know and do it": this is perhaps what you define as "private sector", but I do not necessarily limit it to commercial enterprises, because I believe such definition would be wrong. "those who know and do" are the only people who can provide insights on why things are done this way, how they can be (realistically) changed and which of the ideas other constituencies have are not practical to implement. (for various reasons) > > 2. "Those who want": these are generally what you define as "civil society" in that they do not actually "do" anything of what they suggest/preach, but who in fact insist something be done certain way (for whatever "public benefit" reasons). The role of this constituency is to provide input for the others on what actually the public wants. > > 3. "Those who regulate/redistribute": this is what you define as "government". The primary purpose for any government to exists is to regulate and re-distribute the "public" wealth. The role of this constituency in my opinion is in providing the appropriate legal and other framework/environment so that those who want and those who can -- do their things. > > Now, thing is, these constituencies always overlap. There is certainly a population out of the "know/do" community that is also part of the "want" community and/or the "government" community. The same with others. This is primarily where our views of the working setup differ. > > >> >> In this model, for any particular issue area, >> >> - “government” is reserved for official representatives of governmental >> or intergovernmental institutions, i.e. people who are officially >> authorized to engage in the discourse in the name of such an >> institution; > > Here, the problem is that this ignores the reality. Let's take for example an Internet registry. The registry by itself is an enterprise by your definition, because it is the party who knows and does things. However, the registry is also the "government" of the particular domain in that it defines, sets and enforces the rules in the domain. Models to limit that "power" have been experimented, but experience shows they are not actually successful. > > I see your view of "government" is very narrow. But if so, then the "government" category you describe actually has nothing to do with Internet. Or, if it does apply to Internet, it should also apply to say, the bakery business. After all, everyone uses the services of the bakeries. > > Since government types almost never know anything about technology, this is the first category of theorists. > > >> - “civil society” is reserved for individuals and groups who >> are independent of government and industry interests in the topic >> areas in which they engage; > > There is no such thing as "independent". Actually, a colleague of mine provided the following possible definition: "I am independent, because nothing depends on me". As it stands, and given my previous comment, this is perhaps the "independence" part of the "civil society". The second category of theorists. > > Again, if they are independent, what their credentials would be? "Former IBM employee" with the presumption to understand IBM technology? Or "Former ICANN director" with the presumption of understanding ICANN processes? Or "Former ISP engineer" with the presumption that they know technology, etc. > The problem here is "former". There might be many reasons for this, from "fired" to "bored and no longer interested". > How would these people contribute in any meaningful way? In that they now have enough free time to spare on meetings and travel? > >> - “private sector” is reserved for for official representatives of >> businesses and other private sector institutions that are able to >> directly act as change agents in regard to the topics area under >> consideration; > > Now, you have me completely lost! If you say the "private sector" is the "official representatives of the commercial entities", then apparently I misunderstood you and your definition of "private sector" severely differs from mine, because in mine the "official representative" is more of a "government" kind person. Those "official representative" people almost never have any serious expertise in the field their business operates and almost always in the management. Therefore they too, like the "civil society" have nothing to contribute to the practical aspects of the governance. So, a third category of theorists. > >> - “multi/other” is the broad category of all people and organizations >> who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the first three categories. > > I don't know who you put here, but I don't see a single constituency in your lineup, where the practicing experts, who are the only party that can *do* something, are. > >> >> The goal of such a stakeholder categorization is to help recognize (and >> hopefully then rectify) situations where the membership of a committee, >> or a panel, etc, are badly balanced. > > Still, the "those who know and those who can" part is missing. As history shows, any committee that lacks this component inevitably produces garbage, that cannot be implemented and is therefore ignored. > > >> >>> The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that >>> particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals. >>> >>> Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity >>> that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals >>> (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the >>> "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved >>> in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges >>> there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it? >>> >>> For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not >>> "government". >> >> So in your understanding, businesses are part of "civil society" as >> long as they're not state owned??? > > In my country, the constitution says that all parties (individuals, organizations, government) are equal. I therefore make no distinction who the owner is. In my view, only the business is the place where the people who "do" things are. Because this is why businesses exists: to "do" things and earn money. > >> >>> Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a >>> member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind >>> is automatically excluded from the "civil society". >>> >>> Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance" >>> should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in >>> "Internet Governance". >>> >>> Pretty complex, eh? :-) >> >> The model which I'm proposing avoids this kind nonwellfoundedness >> paradox. >> >> More importantly, the model that I'm proposing avoids defining “civil >> society” so broadly that the experiences and concerns which are >> shared among the members of “civil society” are simply shared because >> we are all humans living on the same planet. >> >> The broad definitions of “civil society” do not result in “civil >> society” being a category with useful meaning. If multistakeholder >> processes are based on badly defined stakeholder categories, then I'm >> sure that at least in the long run, no governance structure that relies >> on such processes can be viable. > > See my proposal above. I would rather dispose of "civil society" as a category. I understand it will annoy a lot of people, but still.. > > One of the problems with "civil society" used in this definition is that not everyone in the world has English as their native language. Translating an expression often is not straightforward and involves the difference in culture and perception between the users of the various languages. A not so fancy definition might actually do the job better. > > Unfortunately, I don't believe a "not fancy enough" definition would be accepted by the "government" types.. > > Daniel > >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 daniel at digsys.bg Wed Sep 18 01:56:05 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:56:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <52394075.6090407@digsys.bg> Peter, Thanks for expressing better what I was trying to point out. Best Regards, Daniel On 18.09.13 05:43, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Norbert, > > When I served in the IGF MAG as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part of a civil society. In fact, my personal preferences more often resonate with the sentiments of organized civil society. And we had the general agreement that those who serve on the MAG would be chosen precisely for that quality, i.e. that they can reach out to multiple constituencies and interest groups, that they do not merely represent one particular viewpoint but can synthesize and moderate the various viewpoints of the constituencies to which they are affiliated one way or the other. > > If you wish to exclude people like myself from your definition of civil society, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Just like yourself, I am a user of the Internet, just like yourself, I have all the same interests in having my civil and human rights, my privacy and my personal data protected. And I'm also interested in not only looking at myself, but in seeing this extended as a general principle, in the best Kantian categorical imperative sort-of way. > > Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral conscience. And I do not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of the company just by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that is involved in laying the physical underpinning of the Internet. > > There are equally people who serve in government who have the same characteristics and who would rightfully have a claim to belong to civil society. > > Please remember that some people may have chosen to work in a particular environment (business, government, academia etc) because they felt that their chance of influencing business practices or government regulations or academic research and teaching was best achieved by working from within those institutions. Which does not mean to imply that those who have chosen to do so have done a disservice to the organizations work for or that they may have covertly been disloyal to them. > > And please don't forget those either who have over the years wandered between different stakeholder groups, like Bertrand, who would be excluded by your very definition from the stakeholder group he helped to create. > > I think you may not need a definition at all. If you think you need a way to choose who officially "speaks" for civil society as a civil society representative, then let the individual case be decided by a common vote amongst those who participate in the debate. They will know who exhibits the traits by which they will want to be represented: fairness, equality, transparency, ..... > > Best regards > > Peter > > On 17.09.2013, at 20:21, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 17.09.2013, at 20:22, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >>> On 17.09.13 10:32, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> This relates to the very fundamental question about what is “civil >>>> society”. My view is that only people and organizations are >>>> qualified to be considered “civil society” who are truly >>>> independent of all industry and government interests in regard to >>>> the topic areas on which they engage. >>> This is a very good question, but unfortunately not an acceptable >>> definition. >>> >>> What you suggest is that individuals (by themselves or grouped in >>> organisations) essentially without any qualifications in the field >>> (by virtue of not being involved in any entity in that industry -- >>> because they are not "companies") are to decide how that very >>> industry should develop. >> Huh??? >> >> I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested that “civil society” should >> decide single-handedly to make the rules for how “industry should >> develop”! > I did not want to imply that. However, we should properly name the subjects. > >> Somewhat recently I've started thinking more deeply about how >> multistakeholder processes can be improved, and in that context I've >> come to the conclusion that it will be best to use a model of >> stakeholder categories that that has three relatively strictly defined >> stakeholder categories (“government”, “civil society”, “private >> sector”) plus one broad catch-all “multi/other” category for all >> people and organizations who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the >> first three categories. > My classification would be a bit different (I too, think from time to time how to best define these categories). What I have come to might certainly annoy some, because it's more down to Earth. I too, envision three categories, such as: > > 1. "Those who know and do it": this is perhaps what you define as "private sector", but I do not necessarily limit it to commercial enterprises, because I believe such definition would be wrong. "those who know and do" are the only people who can provide insights on why things are done this way, how they can be (realistically) changed and which of the ideas other constituencies have are not practical to implement. (for various reasons) > > 2. "Those who want": these are generally what you define as "civil society" in that they do not actually "do" anything of what they suggest/preach, but who in fact insist something be done certain way (for whatever "public benefit" reasons). The role of this constituency is to provide input for the others on what actually the public wants. > > 3. "Those who regulate/redistribute": this is what you define as "government". The primary purpose for any government to exists is to regulate and re-distribute the "public" wealth. The role of this constituency in my opinion is in providing the appropriate legal and other framework/environment so that those who want and those who can -- do their things. > > Now, thing is, these constituencies always overlap. There is certainly a population out of the "know/do" community that is also part of the "want" community and/or the "government" community. The same with others. This is primarily where our views of the working setup differ. > > >> In this model, for any particular issue area, >> >> - “government” is reserved for official representatives of governmental >> or intergovernmental institutions, i.e. people who are officially >> authorized to engage in the discourse in the name of such an >> institution; > Here, the problem is that this ignores the reality. Let's take for example an Internet registry. The registry by itself is an enterprise by your definition, because it is the party who knows and does things. However, the registry is also the "government" of the particular domain in that it defines, sets and enforces the rules in the domain. Models to limit that "power" have been experimented, but experience shows they are not actually successful. > > I see your view of "government" is very narrow. But if so, then the "government" category you describe actually has nothing to do with Internet. Or, if it does apply to Internet, it should also apply to say, the bakery business. After all, everyone uses the services of the bakeries. > > Since government types almost never know anything about technology, this is the first category of theorists. > > >> - “civil society” is reserved for individuals and groups who >> are independent of government and industry interests in the topic >> areas in which they engage; > There is no such thing as "independent". Actually, a colleague of mine provided the following possible definition: "I am independent, because nothing depends on me". As it stands, and given my previous comment, this is perhaps the "independence" part of the "civil society". The second category of theorists. > > Again, if they are independent, what their credentials would be? "Former IBM employee" with the presumption to understand IBM technology? Or "Former ICANN director" with the presumption of understanding ICANN processes? Or "Former ISP engineer" with the presumption that they know technology, etc. > The problem here is "former". There might be many reasons for this, from "fired" to "bored and no longer interested". > How would these people contribute in any meaningful way? In that they now have enough free time to spare on meetings and travel? > >> - “private sector” is reserved for for official representatives of >> businesses and other private sector institutions that are able to >> directly act as change agents in regard to the topics area under >> consideration; > Now, you have me completely lost! If you say the "private sector" is the "official representatives of the commercial entities", then apparently I misunderstood you and your definition of "private sector" severely differs from mine, because in mine the "official representative" is more of a "government" kind person. Those "official representative" people almost never have any serious expertise in the field their business operates and almost always in the management. Therefore they too, like the "civil society" have nothing to contribute to the practical aspects of the governance. So, a third category of theorists. > >> - “multi/other” is the broad category of all people and organizations >> who don't neatly fit into exactly one of the first three categories. > I don't know who you put here, but I don't see a single constituency in your lineup, where the practicing experts, who are the only party that can *do* something, are. > >> The goal of such a stakeholder categorization is to help recognize (and >> hopefully then rectify) situations where the membership of a committee, >> or a panel, etc, are badly balanced. > Still, the "those who know and those who can" part is missing. As history shows, any committee that lacks this component inevitably produces garbage, that cannot be implemented and is therefore ignored. > > >>> The "industry" consists of all parties that are active in that >>> particular area, be it individuals or groups of individuals. >>> >>> Let's take as example the ISP industry. This is certainly an activity >>> that has been practiced by both individuals and groups of individuals >>> (companies). If you exclude those who are in the trade from the >>> "civil society", what is left is those who have never been involved >>> in the ISP industry and therefore have no clue what the challenges >>> there are. Yet, those people are tasked to shape it? >>> >>> For me, "civil society" has always been anything that is not >>> "government". >> So in your understanding, businesses are part of "civil society" as >> long as they're not state owned??? > In my country, the constitution says that all parties (individuals, organizations, government) are equal. I therefore make no distinction who the owner is. In my view, only the business is the place where the people who "do" things are. Because this is why businesses exists: to "do" things and earn money. > >>> Now, "government" is a very wide term and therefore, a >>> member of the civil society who then becomes "a governor" of any kind >>> is automatically excluded from the "civil society". >>> >>> Now, any "civil society" that participates in "Internet Governance" >>> should either cease to be "civil society" or cease to participate in >>> "Internet Governance". >>> >>> Pretty complex, eh? :-) >> The model which I'm proposing avoids this kind nonwellfoundedness >> paradox. >> >> More importantly, the model that I'm proposing avoids defining “civil >> society” so broadly that the experiences and concerns which are >> shared among the members of “civil society” are simply shared because >> we are all humans living on the same planet. >> >> The broad definitions of “civil society” do not result in “civil >> society” being a category with useful meaning. If multistakeholder >> processes are based on badly defined stakeholder categories, then I'm >> sure that at least in the long run, no governance structure that relies >> on such processes can be viable. > See my proposal above. I would rather dispose of "civil society" as a category. I understand it will annoy a lot of people, but still.. > > One of the problems with "civil society" used in this definition is that not everyone in the world has English as their native language. Translating an expression often is not straightforward and involves the difference in culture and perception between the users of the various languages. A not so fancy definition might actually do the job better. > > Unfortunately, I don't believe a "not fancy enough" definition would be accepted by the "government" types.. > > Daniel > >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 karl at cavebear.com Wed Sep 18 02:18:30 2013 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:18:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <523945B6.6030500@cavebear.com> On 09/17/2013 06:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Civil society is necessarily amorphous. Trying to force it into a > definition will lead to its just not existing. I agree with this 100%. Each person is a bundle of self interests and self conflicts. Each person works that out in his/her own way. There is a tendency in internet governance (and it is a tendency that is growing elsewhere) to try to structurally micro-manage interests into nice pigeonholes. But that is Procrustean - it stretches and cuts each person to make him/her fit into the selected hole. For example, I am an individual user of the net yet I own some small for-profit corporations, I have trademarks and copyrights, I am trained as an intellectual property lawyer, I have written Internet Standards in the IETF, I am affiliated with a registry bidding for new top level domains. Which of my arms or legs must be lopped off for me to force fit into any particular category? Governance structures work better if they do not impose hard structures but, rather, allow people to fluidly form and dissolve coalitions as those people see fit. This is why I greatly dislike the notion of "stakeholder" as a foundation for systems of governance. I cling tightly to the notion of one-person-one-vote. When there are hard structures - such as the assignment of people into categories of "stakeholder" - there will be a reaction. Some people, particularly corporate people, will simply create legal replicants of themselves, each joining a separate category, and thus amplifying the loudness (but not the quality) that person's voice. --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 18 03:15:05 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:15:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA sabotage of Internet security standards In-Reply-To: <015401ceb3c7$21232be0$636983a0$@gmail.com> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <20130917113141.7c8fa95b@quill> <015401ceb3c7$21232be0$636983a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130918091505.19f1288d@quill> Michael Gurstein wrote: > While I agree that there is a significant need for CS expertise in > the black arts of cryptography etc.etc. I'm not sure that I agree > with the implication that these skills in themselves will somehow > ensure freedom from/freedom within surveillance... While just having skills does not ensure freedom... > Whatever response it is possible to ultimately achieve re: the > Snowden/NSA revelations the final result needs to be one that > satisfies/is trustworthy (is worthy for trust) ...not having people of high expertise involved who are clearly independent of the surveillance-industrial complex is IMO pretty clearly a guarantee of having a non-trustworthy situation. > at the > political/normative/popular level if we are to move away from a state > of surveillance/surveillance state. At the normative level, I suppose that some kind of global social contract will have to be developed. > To do this some type of transparent/accountable political > superstructure needs to be in place, if nothing else than to act as a > translator/buffer between the technical folks and the public and to > ensure some degree of transparency/accountability of their > (technical) activities. Maybe the translator function can be fulfilled by blogs together with more formal forms of journalism. This needs to be supported by strong transparency laws. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From skiden at gmail.com Wed Sep 18 04:07:18 2013 From: skiden at gmail.com (Sarah Kiden) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:07:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: WebEx details: Uganda Internet Governance Forum In-Reply-To: References: <122665015.202576.1379422134405.JavaMail.nobody@jsj2tc302.webex.com> Message-ID: Hello everyone, I hope you are all doing well. I just wanted to let you know that the Uganda Internet Governance Forum started over an hour ago. If you failed to make it today or you are not in Uganda, there is no need to worry. We are providing remote participation options as well as posting updates on Facebook and Twitter. WebEx Details: Uganda Internet Governance Forum ================================== ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=239021722&UID=0&PW=NMTkwZjU5MGNj&RT=MiMyMw%3D%3D 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: UgandaInternet 4. Click "Join". To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=239021722&UID=0&PW=NMTkwZjU5MGNj&ORT=MiMyMw%3D%3D ------------------------------------------------------- To join the audio conference only ------------------------------------------------------- Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208 Global call-in numbers: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=239021722&tollFree=0 Access code:920 915 231 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=239021722&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=AAAAAv-KKJp6AuqOQW7/JbuYa5q9tkhQCGoiv30Xae8aT89X&RT=MiMyMw%3D%3D The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your computer by going to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/systemdiagnosis.php. ** *T* *witter:* @ISOCUG, Hashtag: #UIGF13 *Facebook:* www.facebook.com/internetsocietyug Thank you, Sarah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 18 04:46:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:46:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS Participation in the High-Level Leaders Meeting Message-ID: <20130918104606.65d6c376@quill> Dear all According to information that had just been communicated by Donny (a civil society member of the Indonesian multistakeholder committee organizing the IGF), civil society people interested in getting invited to the “High Level Leaders Meeting” which takes place on the day before the IGF should email anisa at igf2013.or.id with cc: to dbu at donnybu.com and include in this email in particular the following information: name, country, passport data. The deadline for this is “as soon as possible, within next week”. According to a draft “term of reference” document, the “High Level Leaders Meeting” is intended to formulate and adopt by consensus a “BALI DECLARATION OF CYBER ETHICS PRINCIPLES to achieve safe [sic], peace, and harmony in cyberspace toward economic prosperity.” Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 18 05:35:38 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 05:35:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS Participation in the High-Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: <20130918104606.65d6c376@quill> References: <20130918104606.65d6c376@quill> Message-ID: <863D2E3B-8B0A-4A15-A0FA-C4CCE8AC900C@acm.org> Hi, Hi, To be sure I understand: We are being invited to volunteer to go to a special meeting to put our signatures on a government declaration that will be determined before anyone gets to Bali on behalf of civil society. I am surprised anyone would be brave enough to put themselves in that position. avri On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:46, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all > > According to information that had just been communicated by Donny (a > civil society member of the Indonesian multistakeholder committee > organizing the IGF), civil society people interested in getting invited > to the “High Level Leaders Meeting” which takes place on the day before > the IGF should email anisa at igf2013.or.id with cc: to dbu at donnybu.com > and include in this email in particular the following information: > name, country, passport data. The deadline for this is “as soon as > possible, within next week”. > > According to a draft “term of reference” document, the “High Level > Leaders Meeting” is intended to formulate and adopt by consensus a > “BALI DECLARATION OF CYBER ETHICS PRINCIPLES to achieve safe [sic], > peace, and harmony in cyberspace toward economic prosperity.” > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Sep 18 05:39:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:39:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > If you wish to exclude people like myself from your definition of > civil society, then you're doing yourself a disservice. Just like > yourself, I am a user of the Internet, just like yourself, I have all > the same interests in having my civil and human rights, my privacy > and my personal data protected. And I'm also interested in not only > looking at myself, but in seeing this extended as a general > principle, in the best Kantian categorical imperative sort-of way. > > Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral conscience. And I do > not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of the company just by > virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that is involved in > laying the physical underpinning of the Internet. > > There are equally people who serve in government who have the same > characteristics I view these characteristics as preconditions for being able to legitimately participate in Internet governance in any way. As you quite correctly point out, these characteristics are not specific to any particular stakeholder category. Also I find it quite obvious that no stakeholder grouping can truthfully claim to always represent these ideals. > and who would rightfully have a claim to belong to > civil society. Do you deny that there is value in the efforts of individuals and groups to be able to engage in a way that has a high degree of independence from government and from commercial interests related to the topics on which they engage? Or would you suggest that a different term instead of “civil society” should be used to describe the people and organizations who engage with a high degree of independence from the trappings of political power and of commercial interests (which, as every honest person will admit, can easily lead people astray in their thinking)? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Sep 18 06:06:00 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:06:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS Participation in the High-Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: <863D2E3B-8B0A-4A15-A0FA-C4CCE8AC900C@acm.org> References: <20130918104606.65d6c376@quill> <863D2E3B-8B0A-4A15-A0FA-C4CCE8AC900C@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130918120600.1ecaa682@quill> Avri Doria wrote: > To be sure I understand: > > We are being invited to volunteer to go to a special meeting to put > our signatures on a government declaration that will be determined > before anyone gets to Bali on behalf of civil society. That is not what is being communicated (the formulation “formulate and adopt by consensus” is an accurate summary of what the nature of the event is claimed to be). But I wouldn't be too surprised if Avri's description is closer to what will actually happen (at least in regard to participants who don't leave the room in protest). > I am surprised anyone would be brave enough to put themselves in that > position. I don't think that they'll physically stop anyone from leaving the room if things get too bad. At least from the perspective of anyone who is not into Chinese state ideology, and who does not otherwise find diplomatic nonsense enjoyable, it's definitely not going to be a purely pleasurable event with simply good culinary and intellectual entertainment as had been speculated earlier. The draft terms of reference document seems to be strongly influenced by Chinese sources, and in additional China has a representative on the panel and in addition after the panel discussion, the general discussion (and presumably drafting) process will according to the draft agenda be lead by United Nations Under-Secretary-General Department of Economic and Social Affairs Mr. WU Hongbo who is of course also from China. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 18 06:44:14 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:44:14 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] CS Participation in the High-Level Leaders Meeting References: <20130918104606.65d6c376@quill> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Norbert, would it make sense to discuss before the meeting what the IGC position is on "harmony in cyberspace"? I personally would not subscribe any understanding of "harmony" which delegates some decision making power to a (Governmental? Non-Governmental?) "referee" who would tell users what is in harmony and what is against harmony. Ethical issues are difficult to define and it is nearly impossible to reach consensus among different cultures. w ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Mi 18.09.2013 10:46 An: IGC Betreff: [governance] CS Participation in the High-Level Leaders Meeting Dear all According to information that had just been communicated by Donny (a civil society member of the Indonesian multistakeholder committee organizing the IGF), civil society people interested in getting invited to the "High Level Leaders Meeting" which takes place on the day before the IGF should email anisa at igf2013.or.id with cc: to dbu at donnybu.com and include in this email in particular the following information: name, country, passport data. The deadline for this is "as soon as possible, within next week". According to a draft "term of reference" document, the "High Level Leaders Meeting" is intended to formulate and adopt by consensus a "BALI DECLARATION OF CYBER ETHICS PRINCIPLES to achieve safe [sic], peace, and harmony in cyberspace toward economic prosperity." Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 18 06:52:41 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:52:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS Participation in the High-Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: <20130918120600.1ecaa682@quill> References: <20130918104606.65d6c376@quill> <863D2E3B-8B0A-4A15-A0FA-C4CCE8AC900C@acm.org> <20130918120600.1ecaa682@quill> Message-ID: <5C8A3BBE-EF67-4202-A54B-D40604A75E84@acm.org> Hi, I was not thinking of there being a need for physical bravery. More a notion of reputational bravery. Though it is true, it will not yet be under a UN flag. avri On 18 Sep 2013, at 06:06, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> To be sure I understand: >> >> We are being invited to volunteer to go to a special meeting to put >> our signatures on a government declaration that will be determined >> before anyone gets to Bali on behalf of civil society. > > That is not what is being communicated (the formulation “formulate and > adopt by consensus” is an accurate summary of what the nature of the > event is claimed to be). But I wouldn't be too surprised if Avri's > description is closer to what will actually happen (at least in regard > to participants who don't leave the room in protest). > >> I am surprised anyone would be brave enough to put themselves in that >> position. > > I don't think that they'll physically stop anyone from leaving the room > if things get too bad. > > At least from the perspective of anyone who is not into Chinese state > ideology, and who does not otherwise find diplomatic nonsense > enjoyable, it's definitely not going to be a purely pleasurable event > with simply good culinary and intellectual entertainment as had been > speculated earlier. The draft terms of reference document seems to be > strongly influenced by Chinese sources, and in additional China has a > representative on the panel and in addition after the panel discussion, > the general discussion (and presumably drafting) process will according > to the draft agenda be lead by United Nations Under-Secretary-General > Department of Economic and Social Affairs Mr. WU Hongbo who is of > course also from China. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Sep 18 07:57:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:57:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS Participation in the High-Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20130918104606.65d6c376@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FAE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20130918135706.7be18336@quill> Wolfgang Kleinwächter : > would it make sense to discuss before the meeting what the IGC > position is on "harmony in cyberspace"? > I personally would not subscribe any understanding of "harmony" which > delegates some decision making power to a (Governmental? > Non-Governmental?) "referee" who would tell users what is in harmony > and what is against harmony. Ethical issues are difficult to define > and it is nearly impossible to reach consensus among different > cultures. +1 Furthermore, it is not clear that large-scale “harmony” serves any useful purpose besides suppression of dissent is pseudo-democracies like China. (My concern here is specifically about attempts at *large-scale* harmony. I have no objection against harmony in small groups which are somehow self-selected on the basis of agreeing about something.) But maybe what they mean with “harmony” is something that differs from what the word means in English? This word “harmony” may have come to us as translation of a Chinese word with a set of meanings which differs from the set of meanings of the English word. If what they mean is something like “disagreements should not lead to insults, nor to suppression of dissent, but to civilized discourse”, then I'd agree with the intended meaning, and I'd just insist that words must be used which actually express what is meant. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Wed Sep 18 08:15:03 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:15:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> Message-ID: <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> Norbert, How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from government and from commercial interests related to the topics on which they engage"? Do you think that everyone of those who work for, or even speak for, a specific government or business is by virtue of that association not independent? And what value should lie in that independence? I presume that you have lost trust in government agencies who spy on us just as much as I do. And that you mistrust companies who have followed legal orders or who have willingly cooperated or collaborated with those spy agencies. That you have lost trust in the system of checks and balances where those checks have clearly failed. I am fully with you on that. But throwing all government or business people into the same category of "untrustworthy because not independent" does not do justice to the majority of people working in these organizations. To answer your question: there is value in individuals, regardless of affiliation, to maintain an independence of thought and to work together in achieving common public policy goals. Finally, I feel like you are trying to preach from a high tower when you claim that "as every honest person will admit", the "trappings of political power and of commercial interest" can "easily lead people astray in their thinking." Do you mean by this that everyone who works in government or business is suspicious of leaving his civil conscience, his ethics and morals, behind by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a particular organization? Maybe you should throw that "holier-than-though" attitude that I sense behind that claim and start engaging with those people and see who they really are and how they think before making such broad generalizations. Respectfully Peter On 18.09.2013, at 11:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Do you deny that there is value in the efforts of individuals and > groups to be able to engage in a way that has a high degree of > independence from government and from commercial interests related > to the topics on which they engage? > > Or would you suggest that a different term instead of “civil society” > should be used to describe the people and organizations who engage with > a high degree of independence from the trappings of political power and > of commercial interests (which, as every honest person will admit, can > easily lead people astray in their thinking)? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Sep 18 09:23:29 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:23:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Amid NSA Tensions, Brazil May Change Its Internet Laws Message-ID: http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-330272/ Tensions are flaring between the U.S. and Brazil over spying, and now Brazil is weighing controversial new Internet laws to keep the U.S. government out of its data. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called off a planned state visit to Washington on Tuesday — the first for a Brazilian leader in nearly two decades — in response to news reports that the National Security Agency had spied on her and state-controlled oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro. In Brazil, politicians and techies are debating how to address allegations of U.S. spying that have surfaced from documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In addition to straining U.S.-Brazil relations, the allegations have pushed politicians to vote on a landmark law that would regulate the Internet for the first time. While the NSA leaks have sparked protests from all over the world, the reaction in Brazil has been especially strong. It has been fueled by a steady stream of news reports on Brazil’s main news network, Globo TV. The stories, which include allegations of spying on Rousseff and Petrobras, have been supplied to the news agency by Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian reporter who first exposed the Snowden documents and who lives in Rio de Janeiro. At the center of the data protection debate is a proposed amendment to a bill that will soon be voted on in Brazil’s congress. The law would require Internet companies like Google and Facebook to physically store data about Brazilians in Brazil. The bill in its original form, called Marco Civil, establishes guidelines for Internet regulation, including protections for freedom of expression, limits on data retention, and provisions protecting Internet companies from the actions of their users, a number of which have been adopted in many major Internet markets including the U.S. and throughout Europe. The proposed amendment appears to be an effort to better secure local user data. Having data stored locally would give the Brazilian government more control over Internet data, and Brazilian courts would more easily be able to issue orders for access to information about Brazilian users of services from foreign companies. Rousseff, who supports the proposed amendment, has declared Marco Civil – first proposed on 2011 – to be an emergency measure that must be voted on within 45 days. Some experts say the proposed amendment is problematic, and would create numerous complications for Internet service providers. Much Internet data is, by nature, stored globally, and enables the exchange of information and use of Internet products across borders because it is not geographically restricted. “It basically ignores the entire Internet, because this data has to circulate, it’s going to be sent to Miami, to Europe. It’s not going to be sitting idle in the servers–that’s [the point] they ignored,” said Ronaldo Lemos, director of a Rio de Janeiro think tank called the Institute for Technology & Society and an advisor to Brazil’s Congress on Media and Free Speech issues. Lemos helped draft the bill in its original form. The law could, for example, limit the ability of smaller companies abroad to legally provide their services to Brazilian users without investing in local data centers. A Google spokeswoman said that while the company supported the original bill, “the proposed amendment to Marco Civil requiring Internet companies to store Brazilian user data in Brazil risks denying Brazilian users access to great services that are provided by U.S. and other international companies.” At the same time, it is also unclear how the proposed amendment could be enforced. Would the regulation apply to Internet users located in Brazil — or Brazilian Internet users everywhere? Storing data in Brazil could also raise privacy problems, because the country lacks a law that addresses specific data protection issues. Brazil’s constitution broadly calls for the protection of privacy. Marco Civil would establish some privacy protections. For example, it proposes that Internet service providers should retain usage logs no longer than one year. Currently, there is no maximum time limit for data retention in Brazil. Privacy advocates say they hope many of issues, including storing medical records, could be addressed in a separate bill. That privacy bill is still being drafted. -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Sep 18 11:04:04 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:04:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Norbert, > > How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from > government and from commercial interests related to the topics on > which they engage"? I would propose that people and organizations who purport to participate as civil society should be asked to publish some statement about what they do to ensure a high degree of independence. If such a statement turns out to be significantly deceptive, that should be punishable as fraud. For example astroturf should be persecuted as a kind of such fraud. > Do you think that everyone of those who work for, > or even speak for, a specific government or business is by virtue of > that association not independent? Yes, in regard to topics which concern the policies or actions of that government, or which are directly related to specific business interests of that company. Being in the employment of an organization is the most obvious form of clearly not being independent from it. > And what value should lie in that independence? Making it easier to be not be unduly influenced in one's thinking by the particular interests of any of those entities which have strong particular interests related to the topic under discussion. > I presume that you > have lost trust in government agencies who spy on us just as much as > I do. And that you mistrust companies who have followed legal orders > or who have willingly cooperated or collaborated with those spy > agencies. That you have lost trust in the system of checks and > balances where those checks have clearly failed. I am fully with you > on that. I have also to a significant degree lost trust in my own ability to objectively think about matters of the public interest unless I take precautionary actions to prevent myself from being unduly influenced by phenomena like not risking to lose one's job, hope of winning someone as a customer, the very human need to be respected and accepted by the people who are one's peer group, etc. All the serious literature on this kind of phenomena (as far as I have read it) leads me to believe that this susceptibility (to forms of social corruption which are not illegal but nevertheless corrupting) is not just my personal problem, but in fact part of human nature. Consequently there is value in maintaining a kind of independence that is designed to minimize this kind of temptations. > But throwing all government or business people into the same > category of "untrustworthy because not independent" does not do > justice to the majority of people working in these organizations. That is not what I'm saying. I'm proposing a model of stakeholder categorization in which someone who is a engaging as a representative of any one of the stakeholder categories “government”, “civil society”, “private sector” is as a logical consequence of the definitions not at the same time and for the same issue engaging as a member of any other of these three stakeholder categories. A logical consequence of this is the need for a new category “multi/other”. I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” category (which by definition does not have a specific “respective role” in Internet governance, but which is needed to ensure that everyone who does not neatly fit into one of the categories with specific “respective roles” can still fully participate in the discourse) violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the Tunis Agenda. Quite on the contrary, I this a logical consequence of taking the remark seriously about governments, civil society and private sector having “respective roles” in Internet governance without at the same time excluding from the discourse everyone who does not fit into such a “three categories of roles” model. > To answer your question: there is value in individuals, regardless of > affiliation, to maintain an independence of thought and to work > together in achieving common public policy goals. Of course. The whole point of multistakeholderism is to recognize and value what people and organizations of the different stakeholder categories can contribute to the discussions on the basis of their experiences, knowledge, and ability to take action. In particular I respect and value what private sector representatives bring to the table in terms of hand-on experience in creating and delivering relevant products and services, and in terms of their resulting ability to be change agents for positive changes. Conversely, I would like to request that the choice which I and others have made should also be respected, that we have chosen to engage in a way that is by design independent of commercial and government interests in the areas of our engagement. > Finally, I feel like you are trying to preach from a high tower when > you claim that "as every honest person will admit", the "trappings of > political power and of commercial interest" can "easily lead people > astray in their thinking." > > Do you mean by this that everyone who works in government or business > is suspicious of leaving his civil conscience, his ethics and morals, > behind by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a particular organization? > > Maybe you should throw that "holier-than-though" attitude that I > sense behind that claim Wanting to assert and preserve the specific particularity of “civil society” (in the sense in which I understand the term), and thereby the particular value that civil society can bring to the table in multistakeholder processes, has nothing to do with "holier-than-though". Similarly it has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when private sector representatives point out that it is the private sector who creates and delivers relevant products and services. And it also has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when people who register to international conferences as government representatives have to present proof of being part of the official delegation. For example just being a government employee is not sufficient. > and start engaging with those people and see who they really are and > how they think I'm doing that. For example, I'm taking note that right now, a private sector representative who is not just anyone but a person who has served on the MAG as a private sector representative, is telling me that I should maybe “throw” what I see as the very core of my choice to be a civil society person, and that moreover essentially everyone who can claim to have “ethics and morals” should be accepted as a civil society person even if at the same time they're representing government or private sector interests _in_the_topic_area_under_discussion_. If that view were to be accepted, in the context which we're discussing here (namely, multistakeholder processes in a Tunis Agenda context), it would effectively destroy civil society as a distinct stakeholder category. That demand to dilute the notion of “civil society” to the point of that notion no longer really meaning anything in particular is not just disrespectful, it is an outright attack on the ability of civil society (in the sense of what the term meant during the WSIS process, and in the only slightly evolved sense in which I use the word) to effectively participate. After all, if we allow the notion “civil society” to be diluted to a point where everyone can claim to be “civil society” on every issue, it is clear that whatever the framers of the Tunis Agenda saw as the specific “respective role” of civil society will clearly have been lost. (Here I use the word “whatever” to indicate that this argument is independent of whether we agree on what the role of civil society is or what it should be.) > before making such broad generalizations. I am not making a broad generalization here. I have many years of experience of engagement as a civil society representative, and the vast majority of private sector people with whom I've interacted have, in all their interactions with me, shown a high level of professional courtesy and professional integrity. That of course includes acceptance and respect for who I choose to be. What is going on here on the IGC mailing list where some people (who primarily identify as being private sector representatives or as members of the technical community, but who don't primarily see themselves as being “civil society”) are trying to tell civil society people to change their understanding of what is “civil society”, that is in my experience definitively the exception rather than the norm. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Wed Sep 18 11:38:25 2013 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:38:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) Message-ID: What about those NGOs, research and educational enterprise that get most of their funding from industry. Are they influenced? Certainly ofif we were talking about lab testing of that industry's products we would consider them influenced. Avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Norbert Bollow Date: 09/18/2013 11:04 (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Norbert, > > How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from > government and from commercial interests related to the topics on > which they engage"? I would propose that people and organizations who purport to participate as civil society should be asked to publish some statement about what they do to ensure a high degree of independence. If such a statement turns out to be significantly deceptive, that should be punishable as fraud. For example astroturf should be persecuted as a kind of such fraud. > Do you think that everyone of those who work for, > or even speak for, a specific government or business is by virtue of > that association not independent? Yes, in regard to topics which concern the policies or actions of that government, or which are directly related to specific business interests of that company. Being in the employment of an organization is the most obvious form of clearly not being independent from it. > And what value should lie in that independence? Making it easier to be not be unduly influenced in one's thinking by the particular interests of any of those entities which have strong particular interests related to the topic under discussion. > I presume that you > have lost trust in government agencies who spy on us just as much as > I do. And that you mistrust companies who have followed legal orders > or who have willingly cooperated or collaborated with those spy > agencies. That you have lost trust in the system of checks and > balances where those checks have clearly failed. I am fully with you > on that. I have also to a significant degree lost trust in my own ability to objectively think about matters of the public interest unless I take precautionary actions to prevent myself from being unduly influenced by phenomena like not risking to lose one's job, hope of winning someone as a customer, the very human need to be respected and accepted by the people who are one's peer group, etc. All the serious literature on this kind of phenomena (as far as I have read it) leads me to believe that this susceptibility (to forms of social corruption which are not illegal but nevertheless corrupting) is not just my personal problem, but in fact part of human nature. Consequently there is value in maintaining a kind of independence that is designed to minimize this kind of temptations. > But throwing all government or business people into the same > category  of "untrustworthy because not independent" does not do > justice to the majority of people working in these organizations. That is not what I'm saying. I'm proposing a model of stakeholder categorization in which someone who is a engaging as a representative of any one of the stakeholder categories “government”, “civil society”, “private sector” is as a logical consequence of the definitions not at the same time and for the same issue engaging as a member of any other of these three stakeholder categories. A logical consequence of this is the need for a new category “multi/other”. I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” category (which by definition does not have a specific “respective role” in Internet governance, but which is needed to ensure that everyone who does not neatly fit into one of the categories with specific “respective roles” can still fully participate in the discourse) violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the Tunis Agenda. Quite on the contrary, I this a logical consequence of taking the remark seriously about governments, civil society and private sector having “respective roles” in Internet governance without at the same time excluding from the discourse everyone who does not fit into such a “three categories of roles” model. > To answer your question: there is value in individuals, regardless of > affiliation, to maintain an independence of thought and to work > together in achieving common public policy goals. Of course. The whole point of multistakeholderism is to recognize and value what people and organizations of the different stakeholder categories can contribute to the discussions on the basis of their experiences, knowledge, and ability to take action. In particular I respect and value what private sector representatives bring to the table in terms of hand-on experience in creating and delivering relevant products and services, and in terms of their resulting ability to be change agents for positive changes. Conversely, I would like to request that the choice which I and others have made should also be respected, that we have chosen to engage in a way that is by design independent of commercial and government interests in the areas of our engagement. > Finally, I feel like you are trying to preach from a high tower when > you claim that "as every honest person will admit", the "trappings of > political power and of commercial interest" can "easily lead people > astray in their thinking." > > Do you mean by this that everyone who works in government or business > is suspicious of leaving his civil conscience, his ethics and morals, > behind by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a particular organization? > > Maybe you should throw that "holier-than-though" attitude that I > sense behind that claim Wanting to assert and preserve the specific particularity of “civil society” (in the sense in which I understand the term), and thereby the particular value that civil society can bring to the table in multistakeholder processes, has nothing to do with "holier-than-though". Similarly it has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when private sector representatives point out that it is the private sector who creates and delivers relevant products and services. And it also has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when people who register to international conferences as government representatives have to present proof of being part of the official delegation. For example just being a government employee is not sufficient. > and start engaging with those people and see who they really are and > how they think I'm doing that. For example, I'm taking note that right now, a private sector representative who is not just anyone but a person who has served on the MAG as a private sector representative, is telling me that I should maybe “throw” what I see as the very core of my choice to be a civil society person, and that moreover essentially everyone who can claim to have “ethics and morals” should be accepted as a civil society person even if at the same time they're representing government or private sector interests _in_the_topic_area_under_discussion_. If that view were to be accepted, in the context which we're discussing here (namely, multistakeholder processes in a Tunis Agenda context), it would effectively destroy civil society as a distinct stakeholder category. That demand to dilute the notion of “civil society” to the point of that notion no longer really meaning anything in particular is not just disrespectful, it is an outright attack on the ability of civil society (in the sense of what the term meant during the WSIS process, and in the only slightly evolved sense in which I use the word) to effectively participate. After all, if we allow the notion “civil society” to be diluted to a point where everyone can claim to be “civil society” on every issue, it is clear that whatever the framers of the Tunis Agenda saw as the specific “respective role” of civil society will clearly have been lost. (Here I use the word “whatever” to indicate that this argument is independent of whether we agree on what the role of civil society is or what it should be.) > before making such broad generalizations. I am not making a broad generalization here. I have many years of experience of engagement as a civil society representative, and the vast majority of private sector people with whom I've interacted have, in all their interactions with me, shown a high level of professional courtesy and professional integrity. That of course includes acceptance and respect for who I choose to be. What is going on here on the IGC mailing list where some people (who primarily identify as being private sector representatives or as members of the technical community, but who don't primarily see themselves as being “civil society”) are trying to tell civil society people to change their understanding of what is “civil society”, that is in my experience definitively the exception rather than the norm. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Wed Sep 18 11:40:53 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:40:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> Message-ID: Norbert, You are either misunderstanding me or twisting my words and the meaning behind them. Perhaps we need to make a phone call to clarify things. I'll send you my number in a private mail. We can then discuss offline and inform the list of the outcome. Peter On 18.09.2013, at 17:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Norbert, > > How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from > government and from commercial interests related to the topics on > which they engage"? I would propose that people and organizations who purport to participate as civil society should be asked to publish some statement about what they do to ensure a high degree of independence. If such a statement turns out to be significantly deceptive, that should be punishable as fraud. For example astroturf should be persecuted as a kind of such fraud. > Do you think that everyone of those who work for, > or even speak for, a specific government or business is by virtue of > that association not independent? Yes, in regard to topics which concern the policies or actions of that government, or which are directly related to specific business interests of that company. Being in the employment of an organization is the most obvious form of clearly not being independent from it. > And what value should lie in that independence? Making it easier to be not be unduly influenced in one's thinking by the particular interests of any of those entities which have strong particular interests related to the topic under discussion. > I presume that you > have lost trust in government agencies who spy on us just as much as > I do. And that you mistrust companies who have followed legal orders > or who have willingly cooperated or collaborated with those spy > agencies. That you have lost trust in the system of checks and > balances where those checks have clearly failed. I am fully with you > on that. I have also to a significant degree lost trust in my own ability to objectively think about matters of the public interest unless I take precautionary actions to prevent myself from being unduly influenced by phenomena like not risking to lose one's job, hope of winning someone as a customer, the very human need to be respected and accepted by the people who are one's peer group, etc. All the serious literature on this kind of phenomena (as far as I have read it) leads me to believe that this susceptibility (to forms of social corruption which are not illegal but nevertheless corrupting) is not just my personal problem, but in fact part of human nature. Consequently there is value in maintaining a kind of independence that is designed to minimize this kind of temptations. > But throwing all government or business people into the same > category of "untrustworthy because not independent" does not do > justice to the majority of people working in these organizations. That is not what I'm saying. I'm proposing a model of stakeholder categorization in which someone who is a engaging as a representative of any one of the stakeholder categories “government”, “civil society”, “private sector” is as a logical consequence of the definitions not at the same time and for the same issue engaging as a member of any other of these three stakeholder categories. A logical consequence of this is the need for a new category “multi/other”. I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” category (which by definition does not have a specific “respective role” in Internet governance, but which is needed to ensure that everyone who does not neatly fit into one of the categories with specific “respective roles” can still fully participate in the discourse) violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the Tunis Agenda. Quite on the contrary, I this a logical consequence of taking the remark seriously about governments, civil society and private sector having “respective roles” in Internet governance without at the same time excluding from the discourse everyone who does not fit into such a “three categories of roles” model. > To answer your question: there is value in individuals, regardless of > affiliation, to maintain an independence of thought and to work > together in achieving common public policy goals. Of course. The whole point of multistakeholderism is to recognize and value what people and organizations of the different stakeholder categories can contribute to the discussions on the basis of their experiences, knowledge, and ability to take action. In particular I respect and value what private sector representatives bring to the table in terms of hand-on experience in creating and delivering relevant products and services, and in terms of their resulting ability to be change agents for positive changes. Conversely, I would like to request that the choice which I and others have made should also be respected, that we have chosen to engage in a way that is by design independent of commercial and government interests in the areas of our engagement. > Finally, I feel like you are trying to preach from a high tower when > you claim that "as every honest person will admit", the "trappings of > political power and of commercial interest" can "easily lead people > astray in their thinking." > > Do you mean by this that everyone who works in government or business > is suspicious of leaving his civil conscience, his ethics and morals, > behind by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a particular organization? > > Maybe you should throw that "holier-than-though" attitude that I > sense behind that claim Wanting to assert and preserve the specific particularity of “civil society” (in the sense in which I understand the term), and thereby the particular value that civil society can bring to the table in multistakeholder processes, has nothing to do with "holier-than-though". Similarly it has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when private sector representatives point out that it is the private sector who creates and delivers relevant products and services. And it also has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when people who register to international conferences as government representatives have to present proof of being part of the official delegation. For example just being a government employee is not sufficient. > and start engaging with those people and see who they really are and > how they think I'm doing that. For example, I'm taking note that right now, a private sector representative who is not just anyone but a person who has served on the MAG as a private sector representative, is telling me that I should maybe “throw” what I see as the very core of my choice to be a civil society person, and that moreover essentially everyone who can claim to have “ethics and morals” should be accepted as a civil society person even if at the same time they're representing government or private sector interests _in_the_topic_area_under_discussion_. If that view were to be accepted, in the context which we're discussing here (namely, multistakeholder processes in a Tunis Agenda context), it would effectively destroy civil society as a distinct stakeholder category. That demand to dilute the notion of “civil society” to the point of that notion no longer really meaning anything in particular is not just disrespectful, it is an outright attack on the ability of civil society (in the sense of what the term meant during the WSIS process, and in the only slightly evolved sense in which I use the word) to effectively participate. After all, if we allow the notion “civil society” to be diluted to a point where everyone can claim to be “civil society” on every issue, it is clear that whatever the framers of the Tunis Agenda saw as the specific “respective role” of civil society will clearly have been lost. (Here I use the word “whatever” to indicate that this argument is independent of whether we agree on what the role of civil society is or what it should be.) > before making such broad generalizations. I am not making a broad generalization here. I have many years of experience of engagement as a civil society representative, and the vast majority of private sector people with whom I've interacted have, in all their interactions with me, shown a high level of professional courtesy and professional integrity. That of course includes acceptance and respect for who I choose to be. What is going on here on the IGC mailing list where some people (who primarily identify as being private sector representatives or as members of the technical community, but who don't primarily see themselves as being “civil society”) are trying to tell civil society people to change their understanding of what is “civil society”, that is in my experience definitively the exception rather than the norm. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Wed Sep 18 11:50:05 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:50:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> Message-ID: <5239CBAD.1010806@digsys.bg> On 18.09.13 18:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > >> Norbert, >> >> How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from >> government and from commercial interests related to the topics on >> which they engage"? > I would propose that people and organizations who purport to participate > as civil society should be asked to publish some statement about what > they do to ensure a high degree of independence. > > If such a statement turns out to be significantly deceptive, that should > be punishable as fraud. For example astroturf should be persecuted as a > kind of such fraud. > > As you can imagine, those who will intentionally lie, will make sure they are not caught. At the same time a lot of innocent, but not extra careful people will be burned. It should be obvious that any intention to punish people who voluntarily participate somewhere does always result in less people participating. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Sep 18 11:58:29 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:58:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> Message-ID: <1352120159.19620.1379519909960.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d25> Norbert Bollow wrote : Message du 18/09/13 17:04 > De : "Norbert Bollow" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) > > Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > > > Norbert, > > > > How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from > > government and from commercial interests related to the topics on > > which they engage"? > > I would propose that people and organizations who purport to participate > as civil society should be asked to publish some statement about what > they do to ensure a high degree of independence. > > If such a statement turns out to be significantly deceptive, that should > be punishable as fraud. For example astroturf should be persecuted as a > kind of such fraud. > > > Do you think that everyone of those who work for, > > or even speak for, a specific government or business is by virtue of > > that association not independent? > > Yes, in regard to topics which concern the policies or actions of that > government, or which are directly related to specific business > interests of that company. > > Being in the employment of an organization is the most obvious form of > clearly not being independent from it. > > > And what value should lie in that independence? > > Making it easier to be not be unduly influenced in one's thinking by > the particular interests of any of those entities which have strong > particular interests related to the topic under discussion. > > > I presume that you > > have lost trust in government agencies who spy on us just as much as > > I do. And that you mistrust companies who have followed legal orders > > or who have willingly cooperated or collaborated with those spy > > agencies. That you have lost trust in the system of checks and > > balances where those checks have clearly failed. I am fully with you > > on that. > > I have also to a significant degree lost trust in my own ability to > objectively think about matters of the public interest unless I take > precautionary actions to prevent myself from being unduly influenced > by phenomena like not risking to lose one's job, hope of winning someone > as a customer, the very human need to be respected and accepted by the > people who are one's peer group, etc. > > All the serious literature on this kind of phenomena (as far as I > have read it) leads me to believe that this susceptibility (to forms of > social corruption which are not illegal but nevertheless corrupting) is > not just my personal problem, but in fact part of human nature. > > Consequently there is value in maintaining a kind of independence that > is designed to minimize this kind of temptations. > > > But throwing all government or business people into the same > > category of "untrustworthy because not independent" does not do > > justice to the majority of people working in these organizations. > > That is not what I'm saying. I'm proposing a model of stakeholder > categorization in which someone who is a engaging as a representative > of any one of the stakeholder categories “government”, “civil > society”, “private sector” is as a logical consequence of the > definitions not at the same time and for the same issue engaging as a > member of any other of these three stakeholder categories. > > A logical consequence of this is the need for a new category > “multi/other”. > > I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” category (which > by definition does not have a specific “respective role” in Internet > governance, but which is needed to ensure that everyone who does not > neatly fit into one of the categories with specific “respective roles” > can still fully participate in the discourse) violates neither the > spirit nor the letter of the Tunis Agenda. Quite on the contrary, I > this a logical consequence of taking the remark seriously about > governments, civil society and private sector having “respective roles” > in Internet governance without at the same time excluding from the > discourse everyone who does not fit into such a “three categories of > roles” model. > > > To answer your question: there is value in individuals, regardless of > > affiliation, to maintain an independence of thought and to work > > together in achieving common public policy goals. > > Of course. > > The whole point of multistakeholderism is to recognize and value what > people and organizations of the different stakeholder categories can > contribute to the discussions on the basis of their experiences, > knowledge, and ability to take action. > > In particular I respect and value what private sector representatives > bring to the table in terms of hand-on experience in creating and > delivering relevant products and services, and in terms of their > resulting ability to be change agents for positive changes. > > Conversely, I would like to request that the choice which I and others > have made should also be respected, that we have chosen to engage in a > way that is by design independent of commercial and government > interests in the areas of our engagement. > > > Finally, I feel like you are trying to preach from a high tower when > > you claim that "as every honest person will admit", the "trappings of > > political power and of commercial interest" can "easily lead people > > astray in their thinking." > > > > Do you mean by this that everyone who works in government or business > > is suspicious of leaving his civil conscience, his ethics and morals, > > behind by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a particular organization? > > > > Maybe you should throw that "holier-than-though" attitude that I > > sense behind that claim > > Wanting to assert and preserve the specific particularity of “civil > society” (in the sense in which I understand the term), and thereby > the particular value that civil society can bring to the table in > multistakeholder processes, has nothing to do with "holier-than-though". > > Similarly it has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when private > sector representatives point out that it is the private sector who > creates and delivers relevant products and services. > > And it also has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when people who > register to international conferences as government representatives > have to present proof of being part of the official delegation. For > example just being a government employee is not sufficient. > > > and start engaging with those people and see who they really are and > > how they think > > I'm doing that. > > For example, I'm taking note that right now, a private sector > representative who is not just anyone but a person who has served on > the MAG as a private sector representative, is telling me that I should > maybe “throw” what I see as the very core of my choice to be a civil > society person, and that moreover essentially everyone who can claim > to have “ethics and morals” should be accepted as a civil society > person even if at the same time they're representing government or > private sector interests _in_the_topic_area_under_discussion_. > > If that view were to be accepted, in the context which we're discussing > here (namely, multistakeholder processes in a Tunis Agenda context), it > would effectively destroy civil society as a distinct stakeholder > category. > > That demand to dilute the notion of “civil society” to the point of > that notion no longer really meaning anything in particular is not just > disrespectful, it is an outright attack on the ability of civil society > (in the sense of what the term meant during the WSIS process, and in > the only slightly evolved sense in which I use the word) to effectively > participate. > > After all, if we allow the notion “civil society” to be diluted to a > point where everyone can claim to be “civil society” on every issue, > it is clear that whatever the framers of the Tunis Agenda saw as the > specific “respective role” of civil society will clearly have been lost. > (Here I use the word “whatever” to indicate that this argument is > independent of whether we agree on what the role of civil society is or > what it should be.) > > > before making such broad generalizations. > > I am not making a broad generalization here. > > I have many years of experience of engagement as a civil society > representative, and the vast majority of private sector people with > whom I've interacted have, in all their interactions with me, shown a > high level of professional courtesy and professional integrity. That > of course includes acceptance and respect for who I choose to be. > > What is going on here on the IGC mailing list where some people (who > primarily identify as being private sector representatives or as > members of the technical community, but who don't primarily see > themselves as being “civil society”) are trying to tell civil society > people to change their understanding of what is “civil society”, that > is in my experience definitively the exception rather than the norm. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Sep 18 12:02:39 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:32:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <1352120159.19620.1379519909960.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d25> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <1352120159.19620.1379519909960.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d25> Message-ID: <0FB98408-C5C5-4D1D-8D18-450B35819741@hserus.net> What is this, the Spanish Inquisition, or maybe the caucus committee on Anti-multistakeholder activities? --srs (iPad) On 18-Sep-2013, at 21:28, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > Norbert Bollow wrote : > > > > > > > +1 > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > Message du 18/09/13 17:04 > > De : "Norbert Bollow" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) > > > > Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > > > > > Norbert, > > > > > > How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from > > > government and from commercial interests related to the topics on > > > which they engage"? > > > > I would propose that people and organizations who purport to participate > > as civil society should be asked to publish some statement about what > > they do to ensure a high degree of independence. > > > > If such a statement turns out to be significantly deceptive, that should > > be punishable as fraud. For example astroturf should be persecuted as a > > kind of such fraud. > > > > > Do you think that everyone of those who work for, > > > or even speak for, a specific government or business is by virtue of > > > that association not independent? > > > > Yes, in regard to topics which concern the policies or actions of that > > government, or which are directly related to specific business > > interests of that company. > > > > Being in the employment of an organization is the most obvious form of > > clearly not being independent from it. > > > > > And what value should lie in that independence? > > > > Making it easier to be not be unduly influenced in one's thinking by > > the particular interests of any of those entities which have strong > > particular interests related to the topic under discussion. > > > > > I presume that you > > > have lost trust in government agencies who spy on us just as much as > > > I do. And that you mistrust companies who have followed legal orders > > > or who have willingly cooperated or collaborated with those spy > > > agencies. That you have lost trust in the system of checks and > > > balances where those checks have clearly failed. I am fully with you > > > on that. > > > > I have also to a significant degree lost trust in my own ability to > > objectively think about matters of the public interest unless I take > > precautionary actions to prevent myself from being unduly influenced > > by phenomena like not risking to lose one's job, hope of winning someone > > as a customer, the very human need to be respected and accepted by the > > people who are one's peer group, etc. > > > > All the serious literature on this kind of phenomena (as far as I > > have read it) leads me to believe that this susceptibility (to forms of > > social corruption which are not illegal but nevertheless corrupting) is > > not just my personal problem, but in fact part of human nature. > > > > Consequently there is value in maintaining a kind of independence that > > is designed to minimize this kind of temptations. > > > > > But throwing all government or business people into the same > > > category of "untrustworthy because not independent" does not do > > > justice to the majority of people working in these organizations. > > > > That is not what I'm saying. I'm proposing a model of stakeholder > > categorization in which someone who is a engaging as a representative > > of any one of the stakeholder categories “government”, “civil > > society”, “private sector” is as a logical consequence of the > > definitions not at the same time and for the same issue engaging as a > > member of any other of these three stakeholder categories. > > > > A logical consequence of this is the need for a new category > > “multi/other”. > > > > I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” category (which > > by definition does not have a specific “respective role” in Internet > > governance, but which is needed to ensure that everyone who does not > > neatly fit into one of the categories with specific “respective roles” > > can still fully participate in the discourse) violates neither the > > spirit nor the letter of the Tunis Agenda. Quite on the contrary, I > > this a logical consequence of taking the remark seriously about > > governments, civil society and private sector having “respective roles” > > in Internet governance without at the same time excluding from the > > discourse everyone who does not fit into such a “three categories of > > roles” model. > > > > > To answer your question: there is value in individuals, regardless of > > > affiliation, to maintain an independence of thought and to work > > > together in achieving common public policy goals. > > > > Of course. > > > > The whole point of multistakeholderism is to recognize and value what > > people and organizations of the different stakeholder categories can > > contribute to the discussions on the basis of their experiences, > > knowledge, and ability to take action. > > > > In particular I respect and value what private sector representatives > > bring to the table in terms of hand-on experience in creating and > > delivering relevant products and services, and in terms of their > > resulting ability to be change agents for positive changes. > > > > Conversely, I would like to request that the choice which I and others > > have made should also be respected, that we have chosen to engage in a > > way that is by design independent of commercial and government > > interests in the areas of our engagement. > > > > > Finally, I feel like you are trying to preach from a high tower when > > > you claim that "as every honest person will admit", the "trappings of > > > political power and of commercial interest" can "easily lead people > > > astray in their thinking." > > > > > > Do you mean by this that everyone who works in government or business > > > is suspicious of leaving his civil conscience, his ethics and morals, > > > behind by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a particular organization? > > > > > > Maybe you should throw that "holier-than-though" attitude that I > > > sense behind that claim > > > > Wanting to assert and preserve the specific particularity of “civil > > society” (in the sense in which I understand the term), and thereby > > the particular value that civil society can bring to the table in > > multistakeholder processes, has nothing to do with "holier-than-though". > > > > Similarly it has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when private > > sector representatives point out that it is the private sector who > > creates and delivers relevant products and services. > > > > And it also has nothing to do with "holier-than-though" when people who > > register to international conferences as government representatives > > have to present proof of being part of the official delegation. For > > example just being a government employee is not sufficient. > > > > > and start engaging with those people and see who they really are and > > > how they think > > > > I'm doing that. > > > > For example, I'm taking note that right now, a private sector > > representative who is not just anyone but a person who has served on > > the MAG as a private sector representative, is telling me that I should > > maybe “throw” what I see as the very core of my choice to be a civil > > society person, and that moreover essentially everyone who can claim > > to have “ethics and morals” should be accepted as a civil society > > person even if at the same time they're representing government or > > private sector interests _in_the_topic_area_under_discussion_. > > > > If that view were to be accepted, in the context which we're discussing > > here (namely, multistakeholder processes in a Tunis Agenda context), it > > would effectively destroy civil society as a distinct stakeholder > > category. > > > > That demand to dilute the notion of “civil society” to the point of > > that notion no longer really meaning anything in particular is not just > > disrespectful, it is an outright attack on the ability of civil society > > (in the sense of what the term meant during the WSIS process, and in > > the only slightly evolved sense in which I use the word) to effectively > > participate. > > > > After all, if we allow the notion “civil society” to be diluted to a > > point where everyone can claim to be “civil society” on every issue, > > it is clear that whatever the framers of the Tunis Agenda saw as the > > specific “respective role” of civil society will clearly have been lost. > > (Here I use the word “whatever” to indicate that this argument is > > independent of whether we agree on what the role of civil society is or > > what it should be.) > > > > > before making such broad generalizations. > > > > I am not making a broad generalization here. > > > > I have many years of experience of engagement as a civil society > > representative, and the vast majority of private sector people with > > whom I've interacted have, in all their interactions with me, shown a > > high level of professional courtesy and professional integrity. That > > of course includes acceptance and respect for who I choose to be. > > > > What is going on here on the IGC mailing list where some people (who > > primarily identify as being private sector representatives or as > > members of the technical community, but who don't primarily see > > themselves as being “civil society”) are trying to tell civil society > > people to change their understanding of what is “civil society”, that > > is in my experience definitively the exception rather than the norm. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 18 12:08:45 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:08:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 17:38 18/09/2013, avri doria wrote: >What about those NGOs, research and educational enterprise that get >most of their funding from industry. Are they influenced? Certainly >ofif we were talking about lab testing of that industry's products >we would consider them influenced. Avri, this was perfectly addressed by RFC 3869. RFC 3869 is realistically but incompletly updated by RFC 6852. Both are explained by PRISM. The rule is simple: trust no one you do not trust for your own life. Because it is actually your own life, sometime, somehow, which may be at stake. 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Sep 18 12:43:58 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:43:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> Message-ID: <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Perhaps we need to make a phone call to clarify > things. I'll send you my number in a private mail. We can then > discuss offline and inform the list of the outcome. Update: Peter and I have talked and have amicably resolved the issue between us. 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 avri at acm.org Wed Sep 18 14:22:56 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:22:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> Message-ID: <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Hi, Well according to the IGC charter, we are all Civil society who declare ourselves to be. The point is dedicating your work toward the well being, as you understand it, of civl society interest. I am comfortable with this standard and don't really care where a person does it. But if, under the leadership of one of our co-cos we get down to determining who is and is not influenced as a determinant, I think there will be a lot of things to look at, including my favorite - who funds your so-called Civil society organization. Also, for those who live in countries where the registration as an NGO is state controlled and a perk of cooperation, I have questions as to the degree of uninfluence those folks can ever really have. As for RFC 3869, civil society it could not speak of, and thereof remained silent on the issue. avri . On 18 Sep 2013, at 12:08, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 17:38 18/09/2013, avri doria wrote: >> What about those NGOs, research and educational enterprise that get most of their funding from industry. Are they influenced? Certainly ofif we were talking about lab testing of that industry's products we would consider them influenced. > > Avri, > > this was perfectly addressed by RFC 3869. > RFC 3869 is realistically but incompletly updated by RFC 6852. > Both are explained by PRISM. > > The rule is simple: trust no one you do not trust for your own life. Because it is actually your own life, sometime, somehow, which may be at stake. > jfc > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Sep 18 15:10:35 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:10:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Sep 18 15:10:28 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:10:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi! Avery, I am afraid you lost me here. At 20:22 18/09/2013, Avri Doria wrote: >But if, under the leadership of one of our co-cos we get down to >determining who is and is not influenced as a determinant, I think >there will be a lot of things to look at, including my favorite - >who funds your so-called Civil society organization. Is it a question to me? We were denied as an ICANN atlarge organization because we ... had no banking account. T&L have a cost, fighting and winning only demand time. >Also, for those who live in countries where the registration as an >NGO is state controlled and a perk of cooperation, I have questions >as to the degree of uninfluence those folks can ever really have. I am afraid that in every country, starting with the US NGO organization registration is by the state? I am unclear about what you mean by "perk of cooperation". Actually, my own favorite is who is footing your T&L. >As for RFC 3869, civil society it could not speak of, and thereof >remained silent on the issue. Why could it not speak of/up??? Please explain. jfc >On 18 Sep 2013, at 12:08, JFC Morfin wrote: > > > At 17:38 18/09/2013, avri doria wrote: > >> What about those NGOs, research and educational enterprise that > get most of their funding from industry. Are they influenced? > Certainly ofif we were talking about lab testing of that industry's > products we would consider them influenced. > > > > Avri, > > > > this was perfectly addressed by RFC 3869. > > RFC 3869 is realistically but incompletly updated by RFC 6852. > > Both are explained by PRISM. > > > > The rule is simple: trust no one you do not trust for your own > life. Because it is actually your own life, sometime, somehow, > which may be at stake. > > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Sep 18 15:39:18 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:39:18 +1200 Subject: Who is Civil Society?/ Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, I note that Peter and Norbert have had their discussions privately and sorted the matter amicably. However, from George's post and others, there are clearly strong feelings where this is concerned. We might want to consider publishing a statement of interest or a brief description of what we do. For the record, I did not initiate the discussions on "who is civil society" either offline or online but I feel that I should address some of the points raised. I will also try to understand where the various perspectives are coming from. One of the challenges, with the IGC is arriving at a consensus on issues of importance and some see that as a failure on the part of the IGC. Sometimes, the conflict is seen in the nature of debates and conflicts that happen on the listserve where different interests and perspectives pop up. Whilst, some argue that the dilution of civil society is a threat because it criticises the civil society world view, I would argue the exact opposite in that it helps to enrich the civil society world view by enriching it. As for the civil society world view, it is as varied as the colours of the rainbow, no one spectrum is alike. Wolfgang mentioned (paraphrasing) that it is culturally impossible to get consensus. I would add that, when it counts, we agree on common denominators. Perhaps one thing that the IGC can work towards, in the future is agreeing what the common denominators are in terms of key sets of principles of things that we should advocate as an IGC rather than a reactionary approach to call for comments on Policies, Preparation of statements etc. The Charter essentially provides a guideline for IGC advocacy. Developing a set of key principles that we agree to seriously advocate is critical in terms of bringing some resolution on what we will agree to harness our resources to highlight and raise. In this instance, it will be our strength to have allies in government, private sector when we are advocating or raising certain issues. For example, I derive great confidence that as we have those with commercial interests but are also civil society, that because they have been privy to our discussions, that they can raise matters of public interest. Corporations can make a profit whilst addressing public interest in the way they roll out technology, etc. This is better than simply ignoring civil society. It also means that there are shared values. Similarly there may be those who work for governments who are not authorised to make comments on certain things as governments usually have an official position on the matter but some feel that they can express themselves in forums such as this. I have met numerous government representatives who lurk on this list who have mentioned to me in person, that the discussions have helped to inform them and no doubt enrich their worldview. There are no easy answers and certainly as Avri mentioned, we are all civil societies who declare ourselves to be. No one is a better judge of that, than you as an individual. In the years that I have known Peter Hellmond, he is a far more active civil society voice in raising awareness on matters of public interest and social responsibility. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well according to the IGC charter, we are all Civil society who declare ourselves to be. The point is dedicating your work toward the well being, as you understand it, of civl society interest. I am comfortable with this standard and don't really care where a person does it. > > But if, under the leadership of one of our co-cos we get down to determining who is and is not influenced as a determinant, I think there will be a lot of things to look at, including my favorite - who funds your so-called Civil society organization. > > Also, for those who live in countries where the registration as an NGO is state controlled and a perk of cooperation, I have questions as to the degree of uninfluence those folks can ever really have. > > As for RFC 3869, civil society it could not speak of, and thereof remained silent on the issue. > > avri > . > > > > On 18 Sep 2013, at 12:08, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> At 17:38 18/09/2013, avri doria wrote: >>> What about those NGOs, research and educational enterprise that get most of their funding from industry. Are they influenced? Certainly ofif we were talking about lab testing of that industry's products we would consider them influenced. >> >> Avri, >> >> this was perfectly addressed by RFC 3869. >> RFC 3869 is realistically but incompletly updated by RFC 6852. >> Both are explained by PRISM. >> >> The rule is simple: trust no one you do not trust for your own life. Because it is actually your own life, sometime, somehow, which may be at stake. >> jfc >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 18 16:10:22 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:10:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> Message-ID: <0B31501A-DBF8-4E60-A760-DD6D0F7F8229@gmail.com> Hi JFC, I hear what you are saying and it implies that things must be black and white. In a former life I was legal counsel for a Telco which would have made me private sector but I was advocating matters of public interest and not just looking out for the best interests of my employer then. In fact being involved in civil society from as early as 1987 have helped me to have a more balanced worldview when dealing with the corporate world. I used it to engender awareness within my own organisation on multiple issues. I have since left to form a Think Tank which is independent, self funded. I consider myself to be civil society. I was the inaugural chair of our National Cyber Security Working Group which is actually Multistakeholder in composition but reports to My country's Ministry of Defence. Following handing over, I am now Chairing the Legal Sub Committee of the Working Group and advise the Government but am NOT on their payroll. I don't see any merits that can come from policing the current subscribers on this list and pigeon holing them into categories. If people want a pure civil society list, they can easily start one. I don't like anyone telling me what I am and what I am not. The test of the matter should be in the levels of contribution on substantive matters, policy, statements, influence etc. Similarly, the attacks on Peter Hellmonds are uncalled for. Whilst there is a way to highlight your point but you need to be able to raise it without resorting to attacks. For the record, I object to any type of pigeon holing. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:10 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 18:43 18/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> >> > Perhaps we need to make a phone call to clarify >> > things. I'll send you my number in a private mail. We can then >> > discuss offline and inform the list of the outcome. >> >> Update: Peter and I have talked and have amicably resolved the >> issue between us. > > I am glad of that. However, the matter raised key general issues that have to be discussed outside of friendly phone talk. I concatenate them. > > On 09/17/2013 06:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Civil society is necessarily amorphous. > > There would then be NO interest in it, except for some to try to manipulate it or use it as an alibi for their own agenda. The Civil society (cf. proposed definition below) is a collective IQ, a source of precious transcendental critics and suggestions and a pool of competent lead users who form the people's last line of defense and protection reserve when an aggression against their common rights crosses the limits their normal life entitles them to. > > > Trying to force it into a definition will lead to its just not existing. > to what Karl commented; I agree with this 100%. Each person is a bundle of self interests and self conflicts. Each person works that out in his/her own way. > > I am sorry, but I 100% disagree with all of this subjectivism introduced by Peter Hellmonds sentence “When I served in the IGF MAG as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part of a civil society”. > > Peter, being able to understand other stakeholders’ certainly is of some help toward inter-comprehension, but what you express was a cause for you to resign as not being trustable. What you express here is exactly the same as the NSA engineers being trusted in a normative meeting as engineers, but behaving as NSA employees, with the aggrieving factor that their colleagues could know who their employer was, and the other MAG representatives had no way to know your motivations. > > Your position was perfectly ethical had you been a Judge, an expert, or a member pronouncing himself in his heart and soul. However, you were not. You were a business stakeholder’s group representative. In your heart and soul you should have represented the best interests of businesses. Otherwise, how could you negotiate with other group resilient sustainable agreements, if these agreements are biased in favor of Civil Society? No side can trust you and your deliverables. > > This is the difficulty of multistakeholderism and the difference between its polycracy and democracy. > > In democracy, you are a person representing people through your vote by majority. In polycracy, you are an authoritative competence advocating the interest of a constituency toward a consensus that is to be uncovered (a consensus is to actually pre-exist under conditions to clarify and agree, otherwise it will never hold). In democracy, you are a person, in polycracy you are an advocate. > > > This is why I 100% agree with Norbert, except when he proposes: “A logical consequence of this is the need for a new category “multi/other”. I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” category (which by definition does not have a specific “respective role” in Internet governance, but which is needed to ensure that everyone who does not neatly fit into one of the categories with specific “respective roles can still fully participate in the discourse) violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the Tunis Agenda.” > > A barrister has his own opinions, and can express them outside of the court in wearing his own cap. What we share is to reach robust, sustainable, efficient consensuses, the esthetic of which is people centered. Our ethic is to do whatever is transparently good to that end. I see no problem if an NSA member tells me: “here is my proposition as an NSA employee”, and adds “as a civil right expert I advise you to try to find something stronger”. Different caps. > > Peter, when you say “Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral conscience. And I do not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of the company just by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that is involved in laying the physical underpinning of the Internet.”, I am sorry but if you keep my respect, you lose my trust. Your paycheck draft by this business is for helping them to make the internet work better so that they make more money. > > - Either this is not their target and if you wish to stay with them you are to refuse to represent them, > - or this is actually their target and you do to them and us a disservice in not trying as much as you can (including in publishing it as long as you did not obtain it, so that they know if they want to keep you as a representative) to have them share your ideas, so that their ideas that you represent are also yours. > > Another point that I would like to make in addition to Norbert is that you took one of the representative places. Who put you there? Why? Who would have been picked otherwise? With the same ideas? > > jfc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Sep 18 16:16:43 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:16:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> Message-ID: <933766A2-2C35-4364-B357-0B3B70162832@gmail.com> > > > > [JFC]I am sorry, but I 100% disagree with all of this subjectivism introduced by Peter Hellmonds sentence “When I served in the IGF MAG as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part of a civil [ST] Peter is the best judge of himself. I invite you to view his blog: http://blog.hellmonds.net/ > > > Kind Regards, Sala > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 18 16:17:48 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 06:17:48 +1000 Subject: Who is Civil Society?/ Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Message-ID: I agree with all the voices who find it difficult to define civil society. I would suggest the same difficulties exist with technical and business communities as well. But I would point out that, as a consequence, multistakeholder will never be a form of governance of any great significance or recognised validity, because there are no clear boundaries to define stakeholder groups and probably never will be. Multistakeholder dialogue? Yes, excellent idea. It can lead towards all relevant voices being heard. Multistakeholder governance? Sorry, it makes no sense to me, and is greatly open to manipulation and domination by the powerful. Which is a great pity. I would love to move beyond feudal nation states as a form of governance, but without recognised and clearly defined constituencies I can't see this happening. Nor would I see an ideal form of global governance being based on electoral and representative units such as NGOs, businesses, and techies. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 5:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Avri Doria Cc: IGC Subject: Who is Civil Society?/ Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) Hi, I note that Peter and Norbert have had their discussions privately and sorted the matter amicably. However, from George's post and others, there are clearly strong feelings where this is concerned. We might want to consider publishing a statement of interest or a brief description of what we do. For the record, I did not initiate the discussions on "who is civil society" either offline or online but I feel that I should address some of the points raised. I will also try to understand where the various perspectives are coming from. One of the challenges, with the IGC is arriving at a consensus on issues of importance and some see that as a failure on the part of the IGC. Sometimes, the conflict is seen in the nature of debates and conflicts that happen on the listserve where different interests and perspectives pop up. Whilst, some argue that the dilution of civil society is a threat because it criticises the civil society world view, I would argue the exact opposite in that it helps to enrich the civil society world view by enriching it. As for the civil society world view, it is as varied as the colours of the rainbow, no one spectrum is alike. Wolfgang mentioned (paraphrasing) that it is culturally impossible to get consensus. I would add that, when it counts, we agree on common denominators. Perhaps one thing that the IGC can work towards, in the future is agreeing what the common denominators are in terms of key sets of principles of things that we should advocate as an IGC rather than a reactionary approach to call for comments on Policies, Preparation of statements etc. The Charter essentially provides a guideline for IGC advocacy. Developing a set of key principles that we agree to seriously advocate is critical in terms of bringing some resolution on what we will agree to harness our resources to highlight and raise. In this instance, it will be our strength to have allies in government, private sector when we are advocating or raising certain issues. For example, I derive great confidence that as we have those with commercial interests but are also civil society, that because they have been privy to our discussions, that they can raise matters of public interest. Corporations can make a profit whilst addressing public interest in the way they roll out technology, etc. This is better than simply ignoring civil society. It also means that there are shared values. Similarly there may be those who work for governments who are not authorised to make comments on certain things as governments usually have an official position on the matter but some feel that they can express themselves in forums such as this. I have met numerous government representatives who lurk on this list who have mentioned to me in person, that the discussions have helped to inform them and no doubt enrich their worldview. There are no easy answers and certainly as Avri mentioned, we are all civil societies who declare ourselves to be. No one is a better judge of that, than you as an individual. In the years that I have known Peter Hellmond, he is a far more active civil society voice in raising awareness on matters of public interest and social responsibility. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well according to the IGC charter, we are all Civil society who declare > ourselves to be. The point is dedicating your work toward the well being, > as you understand it, of civl society interest. I am comfortable with > this standard and don't really care where a person does it. > > But if, under the leadership of one of our co-cos we get down to > determining who is and is not influenced as a determinant, I think there > will be a lot of things to look at, including my favorite - who funds your > so-called Civil society organization. > > Also, for those who live in countries where the registration as an NGO is > state controlled and a perk of cooperation, I have questions as to the > degree of uninfluence those folks can ever really have. > > As for RFC 3869, civil society it could not speak of, and thereof remained > silent on the issue. > > avri > . > > > > On 18 Sep 2013, at 12:08, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> At 17:38 18/09/2013, avri doria wrote: >>> What about those NGOs, research and educational enterprise that get most >>> of their funding from industry. Are they influenced? Certainly ofif we >>> were talking about lab testing of that industry's products we would >>> consider them influenced. >> >> Avri, >> >> this was perfectly addressed by RFC 3869. >> RFC 3869 is realistically but incompletly updated by RFC 6852. >> Both are explained by PRISM. >> >> The rule is simple: trust no one you do not trust for your own life. >> Because it is actually your own life, sometime, somehow, which may be at >> stake. >> jfc >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Sep 18 16:38:01 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 22:38:01 +0200 Subject: Who is Civil Society?/ Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Message-ID: At 22:17 18/09/2013, Ian Peter wrote: >Multistakeholder governance? Sorry, it makes no sense to me, and is >greatly open to manipulation and domination by the powerful. Ian, This is fully correct. And this is what pays the T&Ls. This is why you/we have to become powerful your/ourself. There are different ways of becoming powerful but all them ressort to make your/ourself necessary or feared. You/we will never achieve this is just complaining or chatting as Civil Society only does. What is the impact on the other stakeholders if they just to ignore us? 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 pimienta at funredes.org Wed Sep 18 17:03:49 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:03:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Message-ID: >Multistakeholder governance? Sorry, it makes no sense to me, and is >greatly open to manipulation and domination by the powerful. I am afraid that the relativism which has been promoted in many previous mails in defining civil society conduces logically and inevitably to Ian's sad conclusion. I may have a defectuous memory but it seems to me that in the WSIS process things were much more clear as the definitions were institutionals and not personals. Civil society is who belongs (exclusively) to a civil society organization (CSO). Nothing prevents you to belong at the same time to a government, a business organization and a CSO; however in case of multiple appartenances some basic and prudent logics provide some order: - if you belong a government, then you are classfied "government" even if you belong to any one of the two other categories (and you should be very careful not to be involved in decisions which impact the company you belongs to); - if you belong to a business entity you are classified a stakeholder from private sector even if you belong also to a CSO. - then to be classified a civil society stakeholder you need 1) to belong to a recognized CSO and 2) not to belong to another stakeholder group. Note 1: academy can be classified as a categorie of CSO or have its own group with the same logic (except that there is no preemption to be both academy and CSO). Note 2: if you are a free spirit who does not belong to government or private sectors, and want to be a voice of civil society, then join a CSO as a member or create your own CSO. This definition does not solve perfectly the issues of conflicts of interests and domination by the powers (no one does) but it does reduce considerably the areas of ambiguities and may allow a more meaningful gouvernance. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Wed Sep 18 17:44:52 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:44:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Message-ID: <523A1ED4.5080806@panamo.eu> Le 18/09/13 23:03, Daniel Pimienta a écrit : > Civil society is who belongs (exclusively) to a civil society > organization (CSO). > > Nothing prevents you to belong at the same time to a government, a > business organization and a CSO; however in case of multiple > appartenances some basic and prudent logics provide some order: Fine. Thanks, Daniel. What about one belonging to a so called CSO that is also sponsored by business and very close to gov and secret services? @+, king regards, Dom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 18 18:03:16 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:03:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <035a01ceb4ba$e1796870$a46c3950$@gmail.com> Given what we now know perhaps it would be wise to modify Reagan's dictum "trust but verify" to "verify then trust"... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Peter H. Hellmonds Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:15 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) Norbert, How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from government and from commercial interests related to the topics on which they engage"? Do you think that everyone of those who work for, or even speak for, a specific government or business is by virtue of that association not independent? And what value should lie in that independence? I presume that you have lost trust in government agencies who spy on us just as much as I do. And that you mistrust companies who have followed legal orders or who have willingly cooperated or collaborated with those spy agencies. That you have lost trust in the system of checks and balances where those checks have clearly failed. I am fully with you on that. But throwing all government or business people into the same category of "untrustworthy because not independent" does not do justice to the majority of people working in these organizations. To answer your question: there is value in individuals, regardless of affiliation, to maintain an independence of thought and to work together in achieving common public policy goals. Finally, I feel like you are trying to preach from a high tower when you claim that "as every honest person will admit", the "trappings of political power and of commercial interest" can "easily lead people astray in their thinking." Do you mean by this that everyone who works in government or business is suspicious of leaving his civil conscience, his ethics and morals, behind by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a particular organization? Maybe you should throw that "holier-than-though" attitude that I sense behind that claim and start engaging with those people and see who they really are and how they think before making such broad generalizations. Respectfully Peter On 18.09.2013, at 11:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Do you deny that there is value in the efforts of individuals and > groups to be able to engage in a way that has a high degree of > independence from government and from commercial interests related to > the topics on which they engage? > > Or would you suggest that a different term instead of “civil society” > should be used to describe the people and organizations who engage > with a high degree of independence from the trappings of political > power and of commercial interests (which, as every honest person will > admit, can easily lead people astray in their thinking)? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Wed Sep 18 18:14:17 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:14:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? In-Reply-To: <523A1ED4.5080806@panamo.eu> References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> <523A1ED4.5080806@panamo.eu> Message-ID: >What about one belonging to a so called CSO that is also sponsored >by business and very close to gov and secret services? Bonsoir Dominique :-) As I said there is no perfect solution but the institutional approach brings better garanty, if not perfect. In my 25 years working in a CSO I can testify that quite often I had this type of suspicion and I conducted investigations... which eventually does not bring proofs but strong presumptions... Naivety is something CSOs cannot afford if they want to be efficient players in multistakeholder games. During WSIS, who participated from civil society remember some "Tunisian NGO's " which were covered secret agents of Ben Ali's government spying our meetings. Real Tunisian NGO's warned us (and sometimes affront them providing intense and dramatic moments) although their representatives behave so obviously that you needed to be really, but really, naive to swallow it ;-). -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Wed Sep 18 18:40:56 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:40:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> <523A1ED4.5080806@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <523A2BF8.1020301@panamo.eu> Yes, Daniel. I do think you're right. I mentionned this only to keep in mind some everyday realities... By the way, did you see that marvellous quotation from Vinton Cerf yesterday on the Internet policy list of ISOC? "/NSA was involved in the early development of the TCP/IP protocols and contributed in a number of positive ways towards improved security./" He wrote that very seriously, without any humourous bit. Great, isn't it? Perhaps a European mind seeks to separate different interests. At the contrary sometimes, US minds seem to tightly mix all interests into an only one. Don't you feel someting like that? @+, kind regards, Dom Le 19/09/13 00:14, Daniel Pimienta a écrit : >> What about one belonging to a so called CSO that is also sponsored by >> business and very close to gov and secret services? > Bonsoir Dominique :-) > > As I said there is no perfect solution but the institutional approach > brings better garanty, if not perfect. > > In my 25 years working in a CSO I can testify that quite often I had > this type of suspicion and I conducted investigations... which > eventually does not bring proofs but strong presumptions... > > Naivety is something CSOs cannot afford if they want to be efficient > players in multistakeholder games. > > During WSIS, who participated from civil society remember some > "Tunisian NGO's " which were covered secret agents of Ben Ali's > government spying our meetings. Real Tunisian NGO's warned us (and > sometimes affront them providing intense and dramatic moments) > although their representatives behave so obviously that you needed to > be really, but really, naive to swallow it ;-). > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Wed Sep 18 18:59:46 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:59:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? In-Reply-To: <523A2BF8.1020301@panamo.eu> References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> <523A1ED4.5080806@panamo.eu> <523A2BF8.1020301@panamo.eu> Message-ID: >By the way, did you see that marvellous quotation from Vinton Cerf >yesterday on the Internet policy list of ISOC? >Great, isn't it? ... >Perhaps a European mind seeks to separate different interests. At >the contrary sometimes, US minds seem to tightly mix all interests >into an only one. >Don't you feel someting like that? You are going to drive me into political incorectness and taboo breaking... Not that I dont like the idea :-) but I will answer to you in private. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 18 19:03:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:03:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] U.S. Telcos Have Never Challenged NSA Demands for Your Metadata In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <037701ceb4c3$4cfb8ee0$e6f2aca0$@gmail.com> Why distinguishing between the private sector pursuing its private/commercial interests can/should be clearly distinguished from Civil Society pursuing the public interest... M -----Original Message----- From: listmom at warpspeed.com [mailto:listmom at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:34 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by Subject: [Dewayne-Net] U.S. Telcos Have Never Challenged NSA Demands for Your Metadata U.S. Telcos Have Never Challenged NSA Demands for Your Metadata By DAVID KRAVETS 09.17.13 Since at least 2006 a secret spy court has continuously compelled the nation's carriers to hand over records of every telephone call made to, from, or within the United States. But none of the phone companies have ever challenged the orders in court, according to an August 29 opinion (.pdf) by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was declassified today. "To this date, no holder of records who has received an Order to produce bulk telephony metadata has challenged the legality of such an Order," reads the ruling. "Indeed, no recipient of any Section 215 Order has challenged the legality of such an Order, despite the explicit statutory mechanism for doing so." The FISC orders cited Section 215 of the Patriot Act to require phone companies like Verizon and AT&T to hand over the phone numbers of both parties involved in all calls, the international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) number for mobile callers, calling card numbers used in the call, and the time and duration of the calls. To be sure, any challenge to the surveillance program would have been done before the court in secret, and it's unlikely one would have been successful. That carriers willfully provided the metadata without blinking a legal eye, however, is cause for alarm, as the telcos appear to be the only ones so far with legal standing to make a challenge to the bulk collection orders. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties and others have brought challenges, but the legal fight on whether they have the right to sue remains undecided. The bulk collection program came to public light in June, when the Guardian published a FISC order on the topic leaked to the media outlet by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The court declassified (.pdf) an opinion today in the wake of Snowden's leaks. "This Court is mindful that this matter comes before it at a time when unprecedented disclosures have been made about this and other highly-sensitive programs designed to obtain foreign intelligence information and carry out counterterrorism investigations. According to NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander, the disclosures have caused 'significant and irreversible damage to our nation,'" according to the opinion. The metadata surveillance became lawful with a 2006 update to the Patriot Act. But it's been reported that most major carriers were providing the NSA with bulk metadata voluntarily before then in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks. So the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the nation's carriers. After a San Francisco federal judge refused to toss the lawsuit, Congress in 2008 passed legislation immunizing the telcos from ever being sued for forwarding customer data to the NSA. "It's disappointing that the telecoms did not stand up for their users," Kurt Ospahl, an EFF staff attorney, said in a telephone interview. The opinion declassified today spells out the court's interpretation of why it is legal under the Patriot Act that all calling records can be forwarded to the NSA. It also notes that there is no adversarial process, meaning without a third-party challenger, the court relies solely on the government's assertions. Every 90 days the court orders carriers to forward all calling metadata on a rolling basis. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 18 19:44:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:14:40 +0530 Subject: Who is Civil Society?/ Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Message-ID: <1413375f718.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> If there is a valid contribution from any group of people or organizations, that is viable from a technical and/or policy standpoint, and it gets ignored, and the consequences of that ignoring then become apparent, well, we can always say 'told you so' And then make common cause with those stakeholders across stakeholder groups (amorphous though that tern is) who are then willing to achieve consensus with us --srs (htc one x) On 19 September 2013 2:08:01 AM JFC Morfin wrote: > At 22:17 18/09/2013, Ian Peter wrote: > >Multistakeholder governance? Sorry, it makes no sense to me, and is > greatly open to manipulation and domination by the powerful. > > Ian, > This is fully correct. And this is what pays the T&Ls. This is why you/we > have to become powerful your/ourself. There are different ways of becoming > powerful but all them ressort to make your/ourself necessary or feared. > You/we will never achieve this is just complaining or chatting as Civil > Society only does. What is the impact on the other stakeholders if they > just to ignore us? > 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 Sep 18 19:44:35 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:44:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Brazil Looks to Break from U.S.-Centric Internet Message-ID: <039301ceb4c9$0883bac0$198b3040$@gmail.com> http://world.time.com/2013/09/18/brazil-looks-to-break-from-u-s-centric-inte rnet/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 18 19:50:53 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:50:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] U.S. Telcos Have Never Challenged NSA Demands for Your Metadata In-Reply-To: <037701ceb4c3$4cfb8ee0$e6f2aca0$@gmail.com> References: <037701ceb4c3$4cfb8ee0$e6f2aca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Why distinguishing between the private sector pursuing its > private/commercial interests can/should be clearly distinguished from Civil > Society pursuing the public interest... If I was running a telco, I would fight to keep my customers data from government agents. I would use it as a selling point for the companies services in expectations I would get customers from the other telcos who did not fight! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: listmom at warpspeed.com [mailto:listmom at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of > Dewayne Hendricks > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:34 AM > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] U.S. Telcos Have Never Challenged NSA Demands for > Your Metadata > > U.S. Telcos Have Never Challenged NSA Demands for Your Metadata By DAVID > KRAVETS > 09.17.13 > > > Since at least 2006 a secret spy court has continuously compelled the > nation's carriers to hand over records of every telephone call made to, > from, or within the United States. > > But none of the phone companies have ever challenged the orders in court, > according to an August 29 opinion (.pdf) by the Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Court, which was declassified today. > > "To this date, no holder of records who has received an Order to produce > bulk telephony metadata has challenged the legality of such an Order," reads > the ruling. "Indeed, no recipient of any Section 215 Order has challenged > the legality of such an Order, despite the explicit statutory mechanism for > doing so." > > The FISC orders cited Section 215 of the Patriot Act to require phone > companies like Verizon and AT&T to hand over the phone numbers of both > parties involved in all calls, the international mobile subscriber identity > (IMSI) number for mobile callers, calling card numbers used in the call, and > the time and duration of the calls. > > To be sure, any challenge to the surveillance program would have been done > before the court in secret, and it's unlikely one would have been > successful. > > That carriers willfully provided the metadata without blinking a legal eye, > however, is cause for alarm, as the telcos appear to be the only ones so far > with legal standing to make a challenge to the bulk collection orders. The > Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties and others have > brought challenges, but the legal fight on whether they have the right to > sue remains undecided. > > The bulk collection program came to public light in June, when the Guardian > published a FISC order on the topic leaked to the media outlet by NSA > whistleblower Edward Snowden. > > The court declassified (.pdf) an opinion today in the wake of Snowden's > leaks. > > "This Court is mindful that this matter comes before it at a time when > unprecedented disclosures have been made about this and other > highly-sensitive programs designed to obtain foreign intelligence > information and carry out counterterrorism investigations. According to NSA > Director Gen. Keith Alexander, the disclosures have caused 'significant and > irreversible damage to our nation,'" according to the opinion. > > The metadata surveillance became lawful with a 2006 update to the Patriot > Act. But it's been reported that most major carriers were providing the NSA > with bulk metadata voluntarily before then in the wake of the 2001 terror > attacks. > > So the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the nation's carriers. After a > San Francisco federal judge refused to toss the lawsuit, Congress in 2008 > passed legislation immunizing the telcos from ever being sued for > forwarding customer data to the NSA. > > "It's disappointing that the telecoms did not stand up for their users," > Kurt Ospahl, an EFF staff attorney, said in a telephone interview. > > The opinion declassified today spells out the court's interpretation of why > it is legal under the Patriot Act that all calling records can be forwarded > to the NSA. It also notes that there is no adversarial process, meaning > without a third-party challenger, the court relies solely on the > government's assertions. Every 90 days the court orders carriers to forward > all calling metadata on a rolling basis. > > [snip] > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Sep 18 20:37:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 06:07:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] The Most Depressing Discovery About the Brain, Ever References: Message-ID: In case anybody wonders why a passion to play politics doesn't lend itself to good decision making .. --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: Dave Farber > Date: 19 September 2013 6:00:44 IST > To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] The Most Depressing Discovery About the Brain, Ever > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Dewayne Hendricks > Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The Most Depressing Discovery About the Brain, Ever > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by > > > The Most Depressing Discovery About the Brain, Ever > Say goodnight to the dream that education, journalism, scientific evidence, or reason can provide the tools that people need in order to make good decisions. > By Marty Kaplan > Sep 16 2013 > > > Yale law school professor Dan Kahan’s new research paper is called “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government,” but for me a better title is the headline on science writer Chris Mooney’s piece about it in Grist: “Science Confirms: Politics Wrecks Your Ability to Do Math.” > > Kahan conducted some ingenious experiments about the impact of political passion on people’s ability to think clearly. His conclusion, in Mooney’s words: partisanship “can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills…. [People] who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.” > > In other words, say goodnight to the dream that education, journalism, scientific evidence, media literacy or reason can provide the tools and information that people need in order to make good decisions. It turns out that in the public realm, a lack of information isn’t the real problem. The hurdle is how our minds work, no matter how smart we think we are. We want to believe we’re rational, but reason turns out to be the ex post facto way we rationalize what our emotions already want to believe. > > For years my go-to source for downer studies of how our hard-wiring makes democracy hopeless has been Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor of government at Dartmouth. > > Nyan and his collaborators have been running experiments trying to answer this terrifying question about American voters: Do facts matter? > > The answer, basically, is no. When people are misinformed, giving them facts to correct those errors only makes them cling to their beliefs more tenaciously. > > • People who thought WMDs were found in Iraq believed that misinformation even more strongly when they were shown a news story correcting it. > • People who thought George W. Bush banned all stem cell research kept thinking he did that even after they were shown an article saying that only some federally funded stem cell work was stopped. > • People who said the economy was the most important issue to them, and who disapproved of Obama’s economic record, were shown a graph of nonfarm employment over the prior year – a rising line, adding about a million jobs. They were asked whether the number of people with jobs had gone up, down or stayed about the same. Many, looking straight at the graph, said down. > > [snip] > > > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 18 20:51:12 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 02:51:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Brazil Looks to Break from U.S.-Centric Internet In-Reply-To: <039301ceb4c9$0883bac0$198b3040$@gmail.com> References: <039301ceb4c9$0883bac0$198b3040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Sep 18 21:47:22 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:47:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Sep 19 02:39:42 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:39:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, This is a call for nominations for candidates who will wish to stand in the elections for the co-coordinator position. My term will be ending soon and I will need to be replaced. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in > standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to > nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So > that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to > choose from. > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Sep 19 02:52:03 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:52:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <035a01ceb4ba$e1796870$a46c3950$@gmail.com> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <035a01ceb4ba$e1796870$a46c3950$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <143662145.2232.1379573524007.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p06> :-)) +1 Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 19/09/13 00:03 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'Peter H. Hellmonds'" , "'Norbert Bollow'" > Copie à : > Objet : RE: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) > > Given what we now know perhaps it would be wise to modify Reagan's dictum "trust but verify" to "verify then trust"... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Peter H. Hellmonds > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:15 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) > > Norbert, > > How would you determine who has "a high degree of independence from government and from commercial interests related to the topics on which they engage"? Do you think that everyone of those who work for, or even speak for, a specific government or business is by virtue of that association not independent? > > And what value should lie in that independence? I presume that you have lost trust in government agencies who spy on us just as much as I do. And that you mistrust companies who have followed legal orders or who have willingly cooperated or collaborated with those spy agencies. That you have lost trust in the system of checks and balances where those checks have clearly failed. I am fully with you on that. But throwing all government or business people into the same category of "untrustworthy because not independent" does not do justice to the majority of people working in these organizations. > > To answer your question: there is value in individuals, regardless of affiliation, to maintain an independence of thought and to work together in achieving common public policy goals. > > Finally, I feel like you are trying to preach from a high tower when you claim that "as every honest person will admit", the "trappings of political power and of commercial interest" can "easily lead people astray in their thinking." > > Do you mean by this that everyone who works in government or business is suspicious of leaving his civil conscience, his ethics and morals, behind by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a particular organization? > > Maybe you should throw that "holier-than-though" attitude that I sense behind that claim and start engaging with those people and see who they really are and how they think before making such broad generalizations. > > Respectfully > > Peter > > On 18.09.2013, at 11:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Do you deny that there is value in the efforts of individuals and > > groups to be able to engage in a way that has a high degree of > > independence from government and from commercial interests related to > > the topics on which they engage? > > > > Or would you suggest that a different term instead of “civil society” > > should be used to describe the people and organizations who engage > > with a high degree of independence from the trappings of political > > power and of commercial interests (which, as every honest person will > > admit, can easily lead people astray in their thinking)? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Sep 19 03:26:23 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:26:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> <523A1ED4.5080806@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <1251278451.3466.1379575583131.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p06> Bravo Dominique, you got the point ! Thanks for your relevant reminder. These NRNGOs (Not Really NGO) recieved their accreditation from the WSIS Secretariat -with the blessing of the ITU ! In fact they even achieved to hinder le CS Plenary working and conributing activities. A very bad and sad souvenir for all the true CS participants. I also can remember some (pseudo)ONG leader trying to bind the WSIS CS to the Private Sector (PS) ... We all togethe also should keep in mind that the PS is speaking una voce through the CCI leadership, and -last but not least- is largely present and influential in the ITU through its ITU Sector membership. IMO this stresses the necessity to be very cautious about the possible osmosis betwenn CS and PS which is detrimental to the CS in any case. Therefore I fully agree with Michael Gurstein upon the principle : Verify then trust! Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 19/09/13 00:14 > De : "Daniel Pimienta" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? > > What about one belonging to a so called CSO that is also sponsored by business and very close to gov and secret services?Bonsoir Dominique :-) > > As I said there is no perfect solution but the institutional approach brings better garanty, if not perfect. > > In my 25 years working in a CSO I can testify that quite often I had this type of suspicion and I conducted investigations... which eventually does not bring proofs but strong presumptions... > > Naivety is something CSOs cannot afford if they want to be efficient players in multistakeholder games. > > During WSIS, who participated from civil society remember some "Tunisian NGO's " which were covered secret agents of Ben Ali's government spying our meetings. Real Tunisian NGO's warned us (and sometimes affront them providing intense and dramatic moments) although their representatives behave so obviously that you needed to be really, but really, naive to swallow it ;-). > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 19 06:40:46 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:40:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> Message-ID: <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: > At 18:43 18/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps we need to make a phone call to clarify >>> things. I'll send you my number in a private mail. We can then >>> discuss offline and inform the list of the outcome. >> >> Update: Peter and I have talked and have amicably resolved the >> issue between us. > > I am glad of that. However, the matter raised key general issues that > have to be discussed outside of friendly phone talk. I concatenate > them. Of course I just intended to say what has been amicably resolved is the interpersonal aspect of misunderstanding each other to some degree, and resulting interpersonal tensions. Substantively, Peter and I still agree to some extent and disagree to some extent and we don't have a problem with that. One point on which I had not communicated clearly enough in my postings is that in my mind OF COURSE EVERYONE IS A MEMBER OF CIVIL SOCIETY in the sense of everyone being equally part of the general “public interest” constituency that many civil society representatives claim to represent. (There are also narrower constituencies, such as e.g. “persons with visual disabilities” whose representatives should of course likewise be recognized as “civil society representatives”.) My remarks about the importance of working on maintaining reasonably strong independence from government and private sector particular interests (related to the topic area under discussion) refer not to who is part of “civil society” as a constituency, but to participation in multistakeholder processes as “civil society representatives”. If we want credible civil society representation, we need to work on our credibility. I'm not suggesting to introduce gatekeepers of any kind who would execute some kind of formal process of verification. But I think that it would be of significant value to have much more transparency on funding etc. We could even develop a formal standard with requirements on what kinds of disclosures individuals and organizations who want to engage as formal “civil society representatives” should make at a minimum. As I wrote, such a narrowing of who participates in multistakeholder processes under the “civil society” banner must be balanced by at the same time introducing a way for people to participate without making a claim of specifically being a representative that fits into the any particular of three primary categories of stakeholder representatives. Hence the new “multi/other” category in my proposal. By the way, besides the four categories of stakeholder representatives “GOV” (government and intergovernmental organization representatives), “CS” (civil society representatives), “BIZ” (business/private sector representatives), “M/O” (multi/other stakeholder representatives), there should probably be an additional registration option “TGO” for representatives of technical governance organizations such as the specialized Internet governance institutions, technical standardization committees, etc. I don't think that it makes sense to classify TGOs as a stakeholder category, but the TGOs exist in order to make multistakeholder governance work in a way that is generally acceptable, from perspectives which include the perspectives of all the primary categories of stakeholder group representatives, and hence it is obviously important to explicitly include TGO representatives in the discussions. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Sep 19 06:49:50 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:49:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> Message-ID: <523AD6CE.5020703@digsys.bg> On 18.09.13 22:10, JFC Morfin wrote: > *On 09/17/2013 06:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Civil society is necessarily amorphous. > > *There would then be NO interest in it, except for some to try to > manipulate it or use it as an alibi for their own agenda. The Civil > society (cf. proposed definition below) is a collective IQ, a source > of precious transcendental critics and suggestions and a pool of > competent lead users who form the people's last line of defense and > protection reserve when an aggression against their common rights > crosses the limits their normal life entitles them to. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Any time I hear about "people's last line of defense and protection", or anything claiming to do things "for the good of the people", a little bell rings in my head and I usually either ignore the rest, or attach "beware" note to it. > > *> Trying to force it into a definition will lead to its just not > existing. > *to what Karl commented; *I agree with this 100%. Each person is a > bundle of self interests and self conflicts. Each person works that > out in his/her own way. > * As you say, anyone, always, acts on their own behalf and for their own benefit. There are documented cases of people obviously not acting in their own interests (*), but these are often considered out of their mind, even if some would attach an "hero" label. (*) We had recently a case in my town, when a young man set himself on fire, during protests to have the mayor resign. The young man died, the mayor resigned and there was much noise. At the end, the mayor would have resigned nevertheless, even if few days later and the man is still dead! He would have done much more for the protests, that were restarted shortly afterwards, but.. he is still dead. Nevertheless, a lot of people claimed he did this "for the people" and to some extent it is true... although he probably just could not put off the flames in time :( > * > *I am sorry, but I 100% disagree with all of this subjectivism > introduced by Peter Hellmonds sentence *“When I served in the IGF MAG > as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part > of a civil society”. > > *Peter, being able to understand other stakeholders’ certainly is of > some help toward inter-comprehension, but what you express was a cause > for you to resign as not being trustable. What you express here is > exactly the same as the NSA engineers being trusted in a normative > meeting as engineers, but behaving as NSA employees, with the > aggrieving factor that their colleagues could know who their employer > was, and the other MAG representatives had no way to know your > motivations. Being employee of an agency like the NSA is a special case. Just as being a member of a political party, or religious group, or a government is a special case. Those people are all "hooked" in one way or another. Sadly enough, I would believe the same kind of "hook" exist also in science and education... Being employee of a commercial organization is "much less" in my book, because you can always get off the hook and work elsewhere. There are special cases of course and at the end, not all companies are created equal -- some do behave like an special agency or a government.... All of this is however a judgement the individual has to make. Nobody but them knows all the circumstances and it is not appropriate to attach labels to people just because they work somewhere. > > Your position was perfectly ethical had you been a Judge, an expert, > or a member pronouncing himself in his heart and soul. However, you > were not. You were a business stakeholder’s group representative. In > your heart and soul you should have represented the best interests of > businesses. Otherwise, how could you negotiate with other group > resilient sustainable agreements, if these agreements are biased in > favor of Civil Society? No side can trust you and your deliverables. With this kind of attitude, why should anyone be surprised that less and less talented people (who obviously have well paying jobs) agree to participate, especially in "civil society" matters. > > This is the difficulty of multistakeholderism and the difference > between its polycracy and democracy. Everything becomes plain and simple, if we remove all this sugar coating and accept that everyone looks at their own interest first and foremost. > * > *A barrister has his own opinions, and can express them outside of the > court in wearing his own cap. What we share is to reach robust, > sustainable, efficient consensuses, the esthetic of which is people > centered. Our ethic is to do whatever is transparently good to that > end. I see no problem if an NSA member tells me: “here is my > proposition as an NSA employee”, and adds “as a civil right expert I > advise you to try to find something stronger”. Different caps. Doesn't this contradict with all the theories you presented above? Why should a barrister be able to do it, but an valuable employee (obviously, an expert in the field) of a commercial subject can not? If you remove all the experts from a study on a specific subject, how do you ensure that the outcome ever makes sense? (I know, "multistakeholderism" mandates that everyone should stay separate and fight with each other) > > Peter, when you say *“Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral > conscience. And I do not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of > the company just by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that > is involved in laying the physical underpinning of the Internet.”*, I > am sorry but if you keep my respect, you lose my trust. Your paycheck > draft by this business is for helping them to make the internet work > better so that they make more money. > > - Either this is not their target and if you wish to stay with them > you are to refuse to represent them, > - or this is actually their target and you do to them and us a > disservice in not trying as much as you can (including in publishing > it as long as you did not obtain it, so that they know if they want to > keep you as a representative) to have them share your ideas, so that > their ideas that you represent are also yours. > * > * *The world is not black and white. If everything was as clean and ordered as you present it, we would not be having this discussion. Daniel * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 19 07:53:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:53:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement on Weakened Crypto (was Re: UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened Protocols, Products) In-Reply-To: <1412ac29bf8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <2ppterjl6c7xhmne73sjl9bm.1379376729567@email.android.com> <20130917085039.7c219d58@quill> <1412ac29bf8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130919135311.39752446@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > As long as there is a meaningful and apolitical feedback produced by > this caucus I couldn't care if it were sent to nist, released as an > open letter or printed out on a sheet of paper, made into an origami > boat and floated down the Potomac in the hope that Keith Alexander or > James clapper sees it. Suresh is right that the IGC should release a statement on this topic. (I don't agree that anything can possibly be apolitical but I suppose what is meant here is: “broadly acceptable from a wide variety of political perspectioves”, and I think that that can be done on this topic.) He mentioned in off-list email: "you can say I am happy to take the lead in drafting this once I get back from traveling, which should be by the middle of next week". Let's support this initiative. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 19 08:13:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:43:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [New post] UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened Protocols, Products In-Reply-To: <20130917085039.7c219d58@quill> References: <2ppterjl6c7xhmne73sjl9bm.1379376729567@email.android.com> <20130917085039.7c219d58@quill> Message-ID: <0C9058AD-C620-402C-BB1F-F56D61889675@hserus.net> The two seem to have crossed, I would say. As in the academics may have drafted this before nist threw it open to review. I don't see where the two messages are inconsistent right now, beyond not specifically mentioning nist --srs (iPad) > On 17-Sep-2013, at 12:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Am Tue, 17 Sep 2013 05:46:00 +0530 > schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > >> Norbert, about my saying 'participate', as you can see, >> cryptographers from across academia in the UK have responded to NIST. > > Suresh, your characterization of the fine open letter of the UK > cryptographers does not describe it correctly. > > http://bristolcrypto.blogspot.ch/2013/09/open-letter-from-uk-security-researchers.html > > The open letter does not in any way reference NIST, nor does it > indicate any intention to become participants in NIST processes. > > Greetings, > Norbert > >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Threatpost >> Date: 09/16/2013 9:35 PM (GMT+05:30) >> To: suresh at hserus.net >> Subject: [New post] UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately >> Weakened Protocols, Products >> New post on Threatpost >> >> >> UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened >> Protocols, Products by Dennis Fisher >> A group of cryptographers in the UK has published a letter that calls >> on authorities in that country and the United States to conduct an >> investigation to determine which security products, protocols and >> standards have been deliberately weakened by the countries' >> intelligence services. The letter, signed by a number of researchers >> from the University of Bristol and other universities, said that the >> NSA and British GCHQ "have been acting against the interests of the >> public that they are meant to serve." >> >> The appeal comes a couple of weeks after leaked documents from the >> NSA and its UK counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, >> showed that the two agencies have been collaborating on projects that >> give them the ability to subvert encryption protocols and also have >> been working with unnamed security vendors to insert backdoors into >> hardware and software products. Security experts have been debating >> in recent weeks which products, standards and protocols may have been >> deliberately weakened, but so far no information has been forthcoming. >> >> The cryptography researchers in the UK are asking the UK and U.S. >> governments to reveal which ones are suspect. >> >> "By weakening cryptographic standards, in as yet undisclosed ways, >> and by inserting weaknesses into products which we all rely on to >> secure critical infrastructure, we believe that the agencies have >> been acting against the interests of the public that they are meant >> to serve. We find it shocking that agencies of both the US and UK >> governments now stand accused of undermining the systems which >> protect us. By weakening all our security so that they can listen in >> to the communications of our enemies, they also weaken our security >> against our potential enemies," the letter says. >> >> Published on Monday, the letter is signed by cryptographers from the >> University of Bristol, University of London, University of >> Birmingham, University of Luxembourg, University of Southampton, >> University of Surrey, University of Kent, Newcastle University and >> University College London. In it, the researchers call on the >> relevant authorities to publicly name the products and standards that >> have been weakened in order to inform users which systems they should >> avoid. >> >> "We call on the relevant parties to reveal what systems have been >> weakened so that they can be repaired, and to create a proper system >> of oversight with well-defined public rules that clearly forbid >> weakening the security of civilian systems and infrastructures. The >> statutory Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Commons >> needs to investigate this issue as a matter of urgency. In the modern >> information age we all need to have complete trust in the basic >> infrastructure that we all use," the letter says. >> >> In the weeks since the documents detailing the NSA's cryptographic >> capabilities emerged, further details about exactly which protocols >> the agency can attack successfully and which standards it may have >> influenced have been scarce. NIST, the U.S. agency that develops >> technical standards for cryptography, among other things, as denied >> accusations that the NSA was able to weaken some of the NIST >> standards. However, at the same time, NIST officials have issued a >> recommendation that people no longer use one of the encryption >> standards it previously published. >> >> "NIST strongly recommends that, pending the resolution of the >> security concerns and the re-issuance of SP 800-90A, the >> Dual_EC_DRBG, as specified in the January 2012 version of SP >> 800-90A, no longer be used," the NIST statement says. >> >> The standard in question is an elliptic curve random bit generator, >> and cryptographers have called into question its integrity in the >> wake of the latest NSA revelations, mainly because its difficult to >> tell how the points on the elliptic curve were determined. >> >> "This algorithm includes default elliptic curve points for three >> elliptic curves, the provenance of which were not described. Security >> researchers have highlighted the importance of generating these >> elliptic curve points in a trustworthy way. This issue was identified >> during the development process, and the concern was initially >> addressed by including specifications for generating different points >> than the default values that were provided. However, recent community >> commentary has called into question the trustworthiness of these >> default elliptic curve points," the NIST statement says. >> >> Image from Flickr photos of Elliott Brown. >> >> Dennis Fisher | September 16, 2013 at 12:05 pm | URL: >> http://wp.me/p3AjUX-qC1 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 19 08:41:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:11:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> Message-ID: <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> We need to make a distinction between public - in whose name the conception of 'public interest' is created, and who, in a democratic system, influence political outcomes through participation in the 'public sphere' - from what may be called as 'civil society'. I see a lot of confusion here between these two important but very different terms and concepts of a democratic ecology. Everyone is 'public' and have the corresponding rights, including various rights of participation, but not everyone can be called as 'civil society'. Civil society has generally referred to relatively organised groups oriented to some kind of public action - which is informed by public interest and not private interest. Before going forward, one must mention that a lot of individuals, with the dint of their demonstrated work and networks of collective action, do become important parts of civil society. The digitally networked world adds a (welcome) complexity that many more individuals can be members of civil society , in this manner, than waspossible earlier . This new dimension should be fully taken into account, with groups like IGC being important sites where such civil society identity is built and expressed. However, the new context does not completely remove the traditional conceptual boundaries of what is and what is not civil society. Norbert explained at length his conception of these boundaries, and I agree with him. Every term or concept has some boundaries of its application, and it would be meaningless without them. The impact of killing the meaning of a term is of damaging the interests of those who employ it for specific purposes. If we want to argue ad absurdum, anything can be reduced to everything-ness which is also nothing ness.... Each of us is also a productive agent is some way or the other, and 'sells' some service or product, yosou well, everyone is business, everyone has some technical (and academic) skills, and so..... in countries like India, where governance system goes deep to include every adult citizen in many governance activities, then everyone is also government...... BTW, what does this kind of vaporisation of stakeholder categories do to multistakeholderism - As aptly questioned by Ian... We are then all just 'public', and governance is based on developing contextual conceptions of public interest, which is done by normal democratic methods..... Multistakeholderists cannot have their cake and eat it too...... Either there are stakeholder categories, with some definitions, or there are not..... Two other conceptions have been offered for delineating civil society. One is self definition. Well, fine, but why does this not apply say also to technical community..... Why is it fine that someone who self defines himself as technical and academic community, and in fact is demonstrably an academic, may not be considered as 'tech and academic community' by whoever is the gatekeeper of that particular community, What is interesting that most people now on the side of keeping civil society as fully open and diffuse category were rather sympathetic to the actions of the gatekeepers of tech and academic community.... This question needs to be responded to. Or, and this is my political question, why is it is just the civil society that is offered such pious advices which would simply results in it loosing its effectiveness... Think of some reps of big telecom industry, including as Karl says, multiple legal replicas of them, being able to fully participate in a civil society effort at building consensus over some net neutrality principles. What Norbert has expounded are simple conflict of interest principles that is basic to organising public life and public systems in all democracies. And the further political context of this discussion is, that although definitionally any non-gov, non-business grouping would be civil society, the term has a preponderant usage for groups representing the interests of those who are normally marginalised and under-represented.... Which is why in WSIS, for instance, you had civil society caucuses representing the interests of women, ethnic minorities, disabled people etc and none for the corresponding empowered categories. Creating definitional weaknesses that contribute to organisational ineffectivness of civil society compromise the interests of these weaker sections. We must accept that business groups are (mostly) organised around interests of large shareholders, and thus a corresponding worldview and policy positions. All civil society groups understand that, without meaning any personal disrespect to any one. (Neither does it mean that every time business has a view that hurts the interests of the marginalised. Of course not.) But we are intent on being blind to such simple universally accepted facts of political life we are compromising the interests of marginalised people. And we are also constructing civil society groupings that are sorely out of sync with civil society groupings in practically all other global governance/ policy spaces.... Lastly, some participants here have mentioned that having/ representing 'civil society values/ interests' is what is relevant to being civil society. Can they clarify what they mean by these terms. Is it the interests of those who are otherwise easily marginalised from policy/ governance spaces, and are generally the ones suffering social, economic and other kinds of injustices..... Or is it something else. Unless we know what 'civil society values/ interests' mean we can identify the civil society persons that espouse these values/ interests. parminder On Thursday 19 September 2013 04:10 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > JFC Morfin wrote: >> At 18:43 18/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >>>> Perhaps we need to make a phone call to clarify >>>> things. I'll send you my number in a private mail. We can then >>>> discuss offline and inform the list of the outcome. >>> Update: Peter and I have talked and have amicably resolved the >>> issue between us. >> I am glad of that. However, the matter raised key general issues that >> have to be discussed outside of friendly phone talk. I concatenate >> them. > Of course I just intended to say what has been amicably resolved is > the interpersonal aspect of misunderstanding each other to some degree, > and resulting interpersonal tensions. > > Substantively, Peter and I still agree to some extent and disagree to > some extent and we don't have a problem with that. > > One point on which I had not communicated clearly enough in my postings > is that in my mind OF COURSE EVERYONE IS A MEMBER OF CIVIL SOCIETY in > the sense of everyone being equally part of the general “public > interest” constituency that many civil society representatives claim to > represent. (There are also narrower constituencies, such as e.g. > “persons with visual disabilities” whose representatives should of > course likewise be recognized as “civil society representatives”.) > > My remarks about the importance of working on maintaining reasonably > strong independence from government and private sector particular > interests (related to the topic area under discussion) refer not to who > is part of “civil society” as a constituency, but to participation > in multistakeholder processes as “civil society representatives”. > > If we want credible civil society representation, we need to work on > our credibility. > > I'm not suggesting to introduce gatekeepers of any kind who would > execute some kind of formal process of verification. > > But I think that it would be of significant value to have much more > transparency on funding etc. We could even develop a formal standard > with requirements on what kinds of disclosures individuals and > organizations who want to engage as formal “civil society > representatives” should make at a minimum. > > As I wrote, such a narrowing of who participates in multistakeholder > processes under the “civil society” banner must be balanced by at the > same time introducing a way for people to participate without making a > claim of specifically being a representative that fits into the any > particular of three primary categories of stakeholder representatives. > Hence the new “multi/other” category in my proposal. > > By the way, besides the four categories of stakeholder representatives > “GOV” (government and intergovernmental organization representatives), > “CS” (civil society representatives), “BIZ” (business/private sector > representatives), “M/O” (multi/other stakeholder representatives), > there should probably be an additional registration option “TGO” for > representatives of technical governance organizations such as the > specialized Internet governance institutions, technical standardization > committees, etc. I don't think that it makes sense to classify TGOs > as a stakeholder category, but the TGOs exist in order to make > multistakeholder governance work in a way that is generally acceptable, > from perspectives which include the perspectives of all the primary > categories of stakeholder group representatives, and hence it is > obviously important to explicitly include TGO representatives in the > discussions. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 19 09:02:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:32:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> Message-ID: <523AF5F9.8080700@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 18 September 2013 11:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well according to the IGC charter, we are all Civil society who declare ourselves to be. The point is dedicating your work toward the well being, as you understand it, of civl society interest. I am comfortable with this standard and don't really care where a person does it. > > But if, under the leadership of one of our co-cos we get down to determining who is and is not influenced as a determinant, I think there will be a lot of things to look at, including my favorite - who funds your so-called Civil society organization. Yes, a very important question.... Groups/ people calling themselves civil society and thus devoted to pubic interest must be transparent about their funding sources, and also about their basic larger positions on key issues (as Norbert and others ask for). They have a special accountability to public as just any normal person does not have, This I agree, is a major point of distinction. Any civil society organisation, or even an individual that positions himself/ herself as civil society, must respond to public questions of accountability on these and other counts. However, I have this impression that there is great amount of reluctance among many of even those here who would normally be considered civil society in this regard, but let me not stray from my basic point here... So, yes, such public accountability is an intrinsic part of claiming a public (as against merely private) role, which idea underlies the concept of civil society... parminder > > Also, for those who live in countries where the registration as an NGO is state controlled and a perk of cooperation, I have questions as to the degree of uninfluence those folks can ever really have. > > As for RFC 3869, civil society it could not speak of, and thereof remained silent on the issue. > > avri > . > > > > On 18 Sep 2013, at 12:08, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> At 17:38 18/09/2013, avri doria wrote: >>> What about those NGOs, research and educational enterprise that get most of their funding from industry. Are they influenced? Certainly ofif we were talking about lab testing of that industry's products we would consider them influenced. >> Avri, >> >> this was perfectly addressed by RFC 3869. >> RFC 3869 is realistically but incompletly updated by RFC 6852. >> Both are explained by PRISM. >> >> The rule is simple: trust no one you do not trust for your own life. Because it is actually your own life, sometime, somehow, which may be at stake. >> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 19 09:16:57 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:16:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:41 AM, parminder wrote: > > > BTW, what does this kind of vaporisation of stakeholder categories do to > multistakeholderism - As aptly questioned by Ian... We are then all just > 'public', and governance is based on developing contextual conceptions of > public interest, which is done by normal democratic methods..... > Multistakeholderists cannot have their cake and eat it too...... Either > there are stakeholder categories, with some definitions, or there are > not..... Some of us who support multi-equal stakeholdersim in IG do not think categories are useful. > > Two other conceptions have been offered for delineating civil society. One > is self definition. Well, fine, but why does this not apply say also to > technical community..... Why is it fine that someone who self defines > himself as technical and academic community, and in fact is demonstrably an > academic, may not be considered as 'tech and academic community' by whoever > is the > gatekeeper of that particular community, Was it that they weren't considered to be T&A, or was it that they were not chosen to represent T&A? there is a difference. But your query highlights one of the challenges in "silos". -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 19 09:31:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:01:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <523AFCB9.5040803@itforchange.net> On Thursday 19 September 2013 06:46 PM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:41 AM, parminder wrote: > > >> BTW, what does this kind of vaporisation of stakeholder categories do to >> multistakeholderism - As aptly questioned by Ian... We are then all just >> 'public', and governance is based on developing contextual conceptions of >> public interest, which is done by normal democratic methods..... >> Multistakeholderists cannot have their cake and eat it too...... Either >> there are stakeholder categories, with some definitions, or there are >> not..... > Some of us who support multi-equal stakeholdersim in IG do not think > categories are useful. I am happy for IGC to develop a position on whether stakeholder categories exist or they do not..... I can accept either scenario and develop my thinking and positions over it. However, people can not be arguing one position when it suits them and the opposite when it so suits. ( I aint speaking about you.) The biggest problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) is that it refuses to enter into such clear basic categories and concepts related discussions. It wants to be but doesnt want to be talked about or interrogated.... parminder > >> Two other conceptions have been offered for delineating civil society. One >> is self definition. Well, fine, but why does this not apply say also to >> technical community..... Why is it fine that someone who self defines >> himself as technical and academic community, and in fact is demonstrably an >> academic, may not be considered as 'tech and academic community' by whoever >> is the >> gatekeeper of that particular community, > Was it that they weren't considered to be T&A, or was it that they > were not chosen to represent T&A? there is a difference. > > But your query highlights one of the challenges in "silos". > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 19 09:44:04 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:44:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <523AFCB9.5040803@itforchange.net> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <523AFCB9.5040803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:31 AM, parminder wrote: >> Some of us who support multi-equal stakeholdersim in IG do not think >> categories are useful. > > > I am happy for IGC to develop a position on whether stakeholder categories > exist or they do not Of course they exist, but mostly in the "Geneva-style" of IG that we, unfortunately, focus on. ..... I can accept either scenario and develop my > thinking and positions over it. However, people can not be arguing one > position when it suits them and the opposite when it so suits. ( I aint > speaking about you.) The biggest problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) is > that it refuses to enter into such clear basic categories We are humans, things get messy. We can't be sorted into piles neatly. -- 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 pimienta at funredes.org Thu Sep 19 09:48:40 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:48:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <523AFCB9.5040803@itforchange.net> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <523AFCB9.5040803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: >>Some of us who support multi-equal stakeholdersim in IG do not think >>categories are useful. >I am happy for IGC to develop a position on whether stakeholder >categories exist or they do not..... I can accept either scenario >and develop my thinking and positions over it. I will follow this thread with attention to see if somebody will enlight me on how MSism could function fairly without a functional definition of the categories of stakeholders... I have to admit I doubt it seriously but I am ready to learn. I have also to admit that I consider that many past turmoils in this discussion list are more, in my opinion, the results of the fuzziness on stakeholder categories boundaries than personal factors. As a mathematician I am ready to adopt fuzzy logic in stead of boolean as long as it is coherent and complete. ;-) -- 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 jaryn56 at gmail.com Thu Sep 19 10:58:40 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:58:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yo nombro a Michael Gurstein para el puesto de Coordinador Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo 2013/9/19 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear All, > > This is a call for nominations for candidates who will wish to stand in the > elections for the co-coordinator position. My term will be ending soon and I > will need to be replaced. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to >> nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So >> that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to >> choose from. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Sep 19 11:10:35 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:10:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Controls & IGF Message-ID: <0D20860E-CFB0-41B3-A912-920943704B8B@privaterra.org> Dear colleagues, Many of you may recall that Mubarak's wife took over the IGF for 1/2 a day in Sharm to advance online child protection. Do we know if the Indonesian Govt. wants to advance something similiar for Bali? If so, like minded groups interested in protecting rights online should mobilize. Robert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 19 12:30:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:30:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <020801ceb555$80e98bc0$82bca340$@gmail.com> McTim, As you know what you say below is compketely untrue and you should be ashamed for your insinuation. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my -adventures-in-stakeholderland/ >Was it that they weren't considered to be T&A, or was it that they were not chosen to represent T&A? there is a difference. 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 avri at ella.com Thu Sep 19 12:32:24 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:32:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <523AFCB9.5040803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 19 Sep 2013, at 09:44, McTim wrote: > ..... I can accept either scenario and develop my >> thinking and positions over it. However, people can not be arguing one >> position when it suits them and the opposite when it so suits. ( I aint >> speaking about you.) The biggest problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) is >> that it refuses to enter into such clear basic categories > > We are humans, things get messy. We can't be sorted into piles neatly. I also look for a notion of subsidiarity where each stakeholder group determines its own criteria for participation and representation. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Sep 19 12:37:52 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:37:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <523AFCB9.5040803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 15:48 19/09/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >I will follow this thread with attention to see if somebody will >enlight me on how MSism could function fairly without a functional >definition of the categories of stakeholders... Daniel, I am afraid there is an on-going misunderstanding that affects all the attempts in that area. Multistakeholderism is not about the stakeholders as they discuss them, but about the stakes and the power flows that may influence them. >As a mathematician I am ready to adopt fuzzy logic in stead of >boolean as long as it is coherent and complete. ;-) The question is to know if the "multism" makes it this a mathematic or semantic issue. In any case this is beyon linear logic. IMHO we are in full polylectic agorics with different sets of principles depending on the stakeholders group and sub-groups. In addition linguistic fuzziness and technical approximation adds to doctrinal quantism (please note that I do not take side in realism vs quantism here :-) !!!) and the absence of political/philosophical/social coalitions. Take care. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 19 12:52:07 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:22:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <523AFCB9.5040803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Stakes and power flows, that is what I call steak holderism, with active competition for who gets the sirloin and who ends up with tripe and foot jelly --srs (iPad) > On 19-Sep-2013, at 22:07, JFC Morfin wrote: > > At 15:48 19/09/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >> I will follow this thread with attention to see if somebody will enlight me on how MSism could function fairly without a functional definition of the categories of stakeholders... > > Daniel, > > I am afraid there is an on-going misunderstanding that affects all the attempts in that area. Multistakeholderism is not about the stakeholders as they discuss them, but about the stakes and the power flows that may influence them. > >> As a mathematician I am ready to adopt fuzzy logic in stead of boolean as long as it is coherent and complete. ;-) > > The question is to know if the "multism" makes it this a mathematic or semantic issue. In any case this is beyon linear logic. IMHO we are in full polylectic agorics with different sets of principles depending on the stakeholders group and sub-groups. In addition linguistic fuzziness and technical approximation adds to doctrinal quantism (please note that I do not take side in realism vs quantism here :-) !!!) and the absence of political/philosophical/social coalitions. > > Take care. > jfc > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 19 14:29:39 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:29:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <020801ceb555$80e98bc0$82bca340$@gmail.com> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <020801ceb555$80e98bc0$82bca340$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > As you know what you say below is compketely untrue and you should be > ashamed for your insinuation. I didn't "say" anything, merely posed a question. I also insinuated nothing at all. It is clear that they didn't see you as being part of T&A, which isn't right IMO, but that is what you get when you create silos. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 19 14:52:17 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:52:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <020801ceb555$80e98bc0$82bca340$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Is this all about a personal axe to grind. On an issue regarding how the model works, or doesn't work? avri On 19 Sep 2013, at 14:29, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> McTim, >> >> As you know what you say below is compketely untrue and you should be >> ashamed for your insinuation. > > > I didn't "say" anything, merely posed a question. I also insinuated > nothing at all. > > It is clear that they didn't see you as being part of T&A, which isn't > right IMO, but that is what you get when you create silos. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 19 15:06:57 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:06:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Protecting the open Internet may require defunding the ITU. Message-ID: FYI. **** Protecting the open Internet may require defunding the ITU. Here's how to do it.< http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/18/protecting-the-open-internet-may-require-defunding-the-itu-heres-how-to-do-it/ > By: Eli Dourado Some American policymakers have suggested cutting funding for the UN's telecom agency over Internet governance issues. But that's harder than it sounds. -- *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 pouzin at well.com Thu Sep 19 16:02:00 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:02:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Protecting the open Internet may require defunding the ITU. Message-ID: How about defunding the NSA first ? Again the same old story of the straw and the beam. Grow up sorcerer's apprentices... Louis - - - On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > FYI. > > Protecting the open Internet may require defunding the ITU. Here's how to do > it. > By: Eli Dourado > > Some American policymakers have suggested cutting funding for the UN's > telecom agency over Internet governance issues. But that's harder than it > sounds. > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 19 16:36:03 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:36:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <020801ceb555$80e98bc0$82bca340$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <030b01ceb577$dd551740$97ff45c0$@gmail.com> Nothing personal on my part... The 1500 +/- members of the Community Informatics community(s) were (as indicated by the various comments) rather disappointed (even angry) at being excluded from having a voice in the T/A community. For them (i.e. those concerned with the grassroots use of ICTs) the model evidently wasn't working. http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers (check out Feb. - March of 2013). (BTW I'ld be very interested to know the size, composition and activity of the networks that others involved in these CS and other discussions are reporting back to... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:52 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) Hi, Is this all about a personal axe to grind. On an issue regarding how the model works, or doesn't work? avri On 19 Sep 2013, at 14:29, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> McTim, >> >> As you know what you say below is compketely untrue and you should be >> ashamed for your insinuation. > > > I didn't "say" anything, merely posed a question. I also insinuated > nothing at all. > > It is clear that they didn't see you as being part of T&A, which isn't > right IMO, but that is what you get when you create silos. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Thu Sep 19 17:19:04 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:19:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?The_BRICS_=93Independent_Internet?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=94_Cable=2E_In_Defiance_of_the_=93US-Centric_Internet?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=94?= Message-ID: * http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-brics-independent-internet-in-defiance-of-the-us-centric-internet/5350272 * *The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff announces publicly the creation of a world internet system INDEPENDENT from US and Britain ( the “US-centric internet”).* *Not many understand that, while the immediate trigger for the decision (coupled with the cancellation of a summit with the US president) was the revelations on NSA spying, the reason why Rousseff can take such a historic step is that the alternative infrastructure: The BRICS cable from Vladivostock, Russia to Shantou, China to Chennai, India to Cape Town, South Africa to Fortaleza, Brazil, is being built and it’s, actually, in its final phase of implementation.* *No amount of provocation and attempted “Springs” destabilizations and Color Revolution in the Middle East, Russia or Brazil can stop this process. The huge submerged part of the BRICS plan is not yet known by the broader public. * *Nonetheless it is very real and extremely effective. So real that international investors are now jumping with both feet on this unprecedented real economy opportunity. The change… has already happened.* Brazil plans to divorce itself from the U.S.-centric Internet over Washington’s widespread online spying, a move that many experts fear will be a potentially dangerous first step toward politically fracturing a global network built with minimal interference by governments. President Dilma Rousseff has ordered a series of measures aimed at greater Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked into the state-owned Petrobras oil company’s network and spied on Brazilians who entrusted their personal data to U.S. tech companies such as Facebook and Google. .. *BRICS Cable!* http://www.bricscable.com/(see video) [image: netw_geo] BRICS Cable… a 34 000 km, 2 fibre pair, 12.8 Tbit/s capacity, fibre optic cable system - For any *global investor*, there is *no crisis* – there is *plenty of growth. It’s just not in the old world* - BRICS is ~*45% of the world’s population* and ~*25% of the world’s GDP* - *BRICS* together create an economy the size of* Italy every year*… that’s the 8th largest economy in the world - The *BRICS* presents *profound opportunities* in *global geopolitics and commerce* - Links Russia, China, India, South Africa, Brazil – the BRICS economies – and the United States. - Interconnect with regional and other continental cable systems in Asia, Africa and South America for improved global coverage - Immediate access to 21 African countries and give those African countries access to the BRICS economies. - Projected ready for service date is mid to second half of 2015. -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 19 17:49:58 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:49:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03a801ceb582$39211b50$ab6351f0$@gmail.com> Thanks very much Jose, but I must decline. I would be a really terrible co-coordinator :) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of José Félix Arias Ynche Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] Yo nombro a Michael Gurstein para el puesto de Coordinador Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo 2013/9/19 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear All, > > This is a call for nominations for candidates who will wish to stand > in the elections for the co-coordinator position. My term will be > ending soon and I will need to be replaced. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would >> like to nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking >> about it. So that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a >> pool of people to choose from. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Sep 19 17:52:56 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:52:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_BRICS_=E2=80=9CIndependent_Interne?= =?UTF-8?Q?t=E2=80=9D_Cable=2E_In_Defiance_of_the_=E2=80=9CUS-Centric_Inte?= =?UTF-8?Q?rnet=E2=80=9D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <837171333.30459.1379627576884.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j11> And finally this famous "BRICs Cable" lands in Miami (USA) ! Business as usual for the NSA ... :-) Jezan-Louis Fullsack > Message du 19/09/13 23:19 > De : "Diego Rafael Canabarro" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] The BRICS “Independent Internet” Cable. In Defiance of the “US-Centric Internet” > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-brics-independent-internet-in-defiance-of-the-us-centric-internet/5350272 > The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff announces publicly the creation of a world internet system INDEPENDENT from US and Britain ( the “US-centric internet”). Not many understand that, while the immediate trigger for the decision (coupled with the cancellation of a summit with the US president) was the revelations on NSA spying, the reason why Rousseff can take such a historic step is that the alternative infrastructure: The BRICS cable from Vladivostock, Russia to Shantou, China to Chennai, India to Cape Town, South Africa to Fortaleza, Brazil, is being built and it’s, actually, in its final phase of implementation. No amount of provocation and attempted “Springs” destabilizations and Color Revolution in the Middle East, Russia or Brazil can stop this process. The huge submerged part of the BRICS plan is not yet known by the broader public. > Nonetheless it is very real and extremely effective. So real that international investors are now jumping with both feet on this unprecedented real economy opportunity. The change… has already happened. Brazil plans to divorce itself from the U.S.-centric Internet over Washington’s widespread online spying, a move that many experts fear will be a potentially dangerous first step toward politically fracturing a global network built with minimal interference by governments. President Dilma Rousseff has ordered a series of measures aimed at greater Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked into the state-owned Petrobras oil company’s network and spied on Brazilians who entrusted their personal data to U.S. tech companies such as Facebook and Google. .. BRICS Cable! http://www.bricscable.com/(see video) > > BRICS Cable… a 34 000 km, 2 fibre pair, 12.8 Tbit/s capacity, fibre optic cable system For any global investor, there is no crisis – there is plenty of growth. It’s just not in the old world BRICS is ~45% of the world’s population and ~25% of the world’s GDP BRICS together create an economy the size of Italy every year… that’s the 8th largest economy in the world The BRICS presents profound opportunities in global geopolitics and commerce Links Russia, China, India, South Africa, Brazil – the BRICS economies – and the United States. Interconnect with regional and other continental cable systems in Asia, Africa and South America for improved global coverage Immediate access to 21 African countries and give those African countries access to the BRICS economies. Projected ready for service date is mid to second half of 2015. > -- > 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) > -- > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Sep 19 20:30:17 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:30:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <523AD6CE.5020703@digsys.bg> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <523AD6CE.5020703@digsys.bg> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 19 21:04:15 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 06:34:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Protecting the open Internet may require defunding the ITU. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As shallow an article as any that I have read on this issue. Dourado is capable of far better work than that, having read some of his earlier papers. --srs (iPad) > On 20-Sep-2013, at 0:36, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > FYI. > > Protecting the open Internet may require defunding the ITU. Here's how to do it. > By: Eli Dourado > > Some American policymakers have suggested cutting funding for the UN's telecom agency over Internet governance issues. But that's harder than it sounds. > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 19 21:07:49 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 06:37:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_BRICS_=E2=80=9CIndependent_Interne?= =?UTF-8?Q?t=E2=80=9D_Cable=2E_In_Defiance_of_the_=E2=80=9CUS-Centric_Inte?= =?UTF-8?Q?rnet=E2=80=9D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0A83AD37-565F-4201-956A-E928BB8C37A0@hserus.net> This is one of several transcontinental undersea cables. And no guarantee against spying or interception. Chalk this down to marketing hype by a telco salesman that doesn't understand routing. --srs (iPad) > On 20-Sep-2013, at 2:49, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-brics-independent-internet-in-defiance-of-the-us-centric-internet/5350272 > > The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff announces publicly the creation of a world internet system INDEPENDENT from US and Britain ( the “US-centric internet”). > > Not many understand that, while the immediate trigger for the decision (coupled with the cancellation of a summit with the US president) was the revelations on NSA spying, the reason why Rousseff can take such a historic step is that the alternative infrastructure: The BRICS cable from Vladivostock, Russia to Shantou, China to Chennai, India to Cape Town, South Africa to Fortaleza, Brazil, is being built and it’s, actually, in its final phase of implementation. > > No amount of provocation and attempted “Springs” destabilizations and Color Revolution in the Middle East, Russia or Brazil can stop this process. The huge submerged part of the BRICS plan is not yet known by the broader public. > > Nonetheless it is very real and extremely effective. So real that international investors are now jumping with both feet on this unprecedented real economy opportunity. The change… has already happened. > > Brazil plans to divorce itself from the U.S.-centric Internet over Washington’s widespread online spying, a move that many experts fear will be a potentially dangerous first step toward politically fracturing a global network built with minimal interference by governments. > > President Dilma Rousseff has ordered a series of measures aimed at greater Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked into the state-owned Petrobras oil company’s network and spied on Brazilians who entrusted their personal data to U.S. tech companies such as Facebook and Google. > > .. > > BRICS Cable! > > http://www.bricscable.com/(see video) > > BRICS Cable… a 34 000 km, 2 fibre pair, 12.8 Tbit/s capacity, fibre optic cable system > > For any global investor, there is no crisis – there is plenty of growth. It’s just not in the old world > BRICS is ~45% of the world’s population and ~25% of the world’s GDP > BRICS together create an economy the size of Italy every year… that’s the 8th largest economy in the world > The BRICS presents profound opportunities in global geopolitics and commerce > Links Russia, China, India, South Africa, Brazil – the BRICS economies – and the United States. > Interconnect with regional and other continental cable systems in Asia, Africa and South America for improved global coverage > Immediate access to 21 African countries and give those African countries access to the BRICS economies. > Projected ready for service date is mid to second half of 2015. > > -- > 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) > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Sep 19 22:09:02 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:09:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?The_BRICS_=93Independent_Intern?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?et=94_Cable=2E_In_Defiance_of_the_=93US-Centric_Internet?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=94?= In-Reply-To: <0A83AD37-565F-4201-956A-E928BB8C37A0@hserus.net> References: <0A83AD37-565F-4201-956A-E928BB8C37A0@hserus.net> Message-ID: +1 as if all on the Internet was merely related to the "tubes". Seems that policy makers are not even reading the basics about the NSA schemes. On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > This is one of several transcontinental undersea cables. And no guarantee > against spying or interception. Chalk this down to marketing hype by a > telco salesman that doesn't understand routing. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 20-Sep-2013, at 2:49, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > > * > http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-brics-independent-internet-in-defiance-of-the-us-centric-internet/5350272 > * > > *The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff announces publicly the creation > of a world internet system INDEPENDENT from US and Britain ( the > “US-centric internet”).* > > *Not many understand that, while the immediate trigger for the decision > (coupled with the cancellation of a summit with the US president) was the > revelations on NSA spying, the reason why Rousseff can take such a historic > step is that the alternative infrastructure: The BRICS cable from Vladivostock, > Russia to Shantou, China to Chennai, India to Cape Town, South Africa to > Fortaleza, Brazil, is being built and it’s, actually, in its final phase > of implementation.* > > *No amount of provocation and attempted “Springs” destabilizations and > Color Revolution in the Middle East, Russia or Brazil can stop this > process. The huge submerged part of the BRICS plan is not yet known by the > broader public. > * > > *Nonetheless it is very real and extremely effective. So real that > international investors are now jumping with both feet on this > unprecedented real economy opportunity. The change… has already happened.* > > Brazil plans to divorce itself from the U.S.-centric Internet over > Washington’s widespread online spying, a move that many experts fear will > be a potentially dangerous first step toward politically fracturing a > global network built with minimal interference by governments. > > President Dilma Rousseff has ordered a series of measures aimed at greater > Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that the > U.S. National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked into > the state-owned Petrobras oil company’s network and spied on Brazilians who > entrusted their personal data to U.S. tech companies such as Facebook and > Google. > > .. > > *BRICS Cable!* > > http://www.bricscable.com/(see video) > [image: netw_geo] > BRICS Cable… a 34 000 km, 2 fibre pair, 12.8 Tbit/s capacity, fibre optic > cable system > > - For any *global investor*, there is *no crisis* – there is *plenty > of growth. It’s just not in the old world* > - BRICS is ~*45% of the world’s population* and ~*25% of the > world’s GDP* > - *BRICS* together create an economy the size of* Italy every > year*… that’s the 8th largest economy in the world > - The *BRICS* presents *profound opportunities* in *global > geopolitics and commerce* > > > - Links Russia, China, India, South Africa, Brazil – the BRICS > economies – and the United States. > - Interconnect with regional and other continental cable systems in > Asia, Africa and South America for improved global coverage > - Immediate access to 21 African countries and give those African > countries access to the BRICS economies. > - Projected ready for service date is mid to second half of 2015. > > > -- > 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Fri Sep 20 00:27:24 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 07:27:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?The_BRICS_=93Independent_Intern?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?et=94_Cable=2E_In_Defiance_of_the_=93US-Centric_Internet?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=94?= In-Reply-To: References: <0A83AD37-565F-4201-956A-E928BB8C37A0@hserus.net> Message-ID: It seems politicians are mis-advised. Since anybody can access the services of the so called BRICS, spying will still be the order of the day. Is anybody seeing the hypocrisy? BRICS countries are also known to spy on their citizens. And what about the real reason people access the internet ... access to content. Will BRICS build alternative Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Skype and the rest? Regards On 20/09/2013, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > +1 > > as if all on the Internet was merely related to the "tubes". Seems that > policy makers are not even reading the basics about the NSA schemes. > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> This is one of several transcontinental undersea cables. And no guarantee >> against spying or interception. Chalk this down to marketing hype by a >> telco salesman that doesn't understand routing. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 20-Sep-2013, at 2:49, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> >> wrote: >> >> * >> http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-brics-independent-internet-in-defiance-of-the-us-centric-internet/5350272 >> * >> >> *The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff announces publicly the creation >> of a world internet system INDEPENDENT from US and Britain ( the >> “US-centric internet”).* >> >> *Not many understand that, while the immediate trigger for the decision >> (coupled with the cancellation of a summit with the US president) was the >> revelations on NSA spying, the reason why Rousseff can take such a >> historic >> step is that the alternative infrastructure: The BRICS cable from >> Vladivostock, >> Russia to Shantou, China to Chennai, India to Cape Town, South Africa >> to >> Fortaleza, Brazil, is being built and it’s, actually, in its final phase >> of implementation.* >> >> *No amount of provocation and attempted “Springs” destabilizations and >> Color Revolution in the Middle East, Russia or Brazil can stop this >> process. The huge submerged part of the BRICS plan is not yet known by >> the >> broader public. >> * >> >> *Nonetheless it is very real and extremely effective. So real that >> international investors are now jumping with both feet on this >> unprecedented real economy opportunity. The change… has already >> happened.* >> >> Brazil plans to divorce itself from the U.S.-centric Internet over >> Washington’s widespread online spying, a move that many experts fear will >> be a potentially dangerous first step toward politically fracturing a >> global network built with minimal interference by governments. >> >> President Dilma Rousseff has ordered a series of measures aimed at >> greater >> Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that the >> U.S. National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked into >> the state-owned Petrobras oil company’s network and spied on Brazilians >> who >> entrusted their personal data to U.S. tech companies such as Facebook and >> Google. >> >> .. >> >> *BRICS Cable!* >> >> http://www.bricscable.com/(see video) >> [image: netw_geo] >> BRICS Cable… a 34 000 km, 2 fibre pair, 12.8 Tbit/s capacity, fibre optic >> cable system >> >> - For any *global investor*, there is *no crisis* – there is *plenty >> of growth. It’s just not in the old world* >> - BRICS is ~*45% of the world’s population* and ~*25% of the >> world’s GDP* >> - *BRICS* together create an economy the size of* Italy every >> year*… that’s the 8th largest economy in the world >> - The *BRICS* presents *profound opportunities* in *global >> geopolitics and commerce* >> >> >> - Links Russia, China, India, South Africa, Brazil – the BRICS >> economies – and the United States. >> - Interconnect with regional and other continental cable systems in >> Asia, Africa and South America for improved global coverage >> - Immediate access to 21 African countries and give those African >> countries access to the BRICS economies. >> - Projected ready for service date is mid to second half of 2015. >> >> >> -- >> 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) >> -- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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) > -- > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 20 00:30:00 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:00:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <523AFCB9.5040803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <523BCF48.4030106@itforchange.net> On Thursday 19 September 2013 10:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 19 Sep 2013, at 09:44, McTim wrote: > >> ..... I can accept either scenario and develop my >>> thinking and positions over it. However, people can not be arguing one >>> position when it suits them and the opposite when it so suits. ( I aint >>> speaking about you.) The biggest problem with multistakeholderism (MSism) is >>> that it refuses to enter into such clear basic categories >> We are humans, things get messy. We can't be sorted into piles neatly. > > I also look for a notion of subsidiarity where each stakeholder group determines its own criteria for participation and representation. Who decides what and how many of these stakeholder groups would exist and be considered relevant in the first place, and what proportion of relevance will be allocated to each .... Why women groups involved with Internet issues not be a separate stakeholder group, as should be those with disability, cultural minorities, LGBT groups, trade unions, and so on.... Why each of them doesnt get an equal pie in stakeholder representation bodies, as some *big businesses*, and some Internet techies get at present. The groups that I mention here are much bigger than these two groups - big business and Internet techies, and owing to their marginalisation, much more in need of additional representational avenues. However, even to take your point, if indeed so, on this principle of subsidiarity, why is then civil society not allowed to determine its own boundaries, which are clearly relevant to processes of participation and representation. Why are those who represent other stakeholder groups in the IG spaces constantly telling civil society that we mustn't be excluding and mustn't pigeon-hole people. Especially when we mean no such thing - we welcome including everyone in our discussions, which are publicly archived (unlike the case of any of these other groups). But when it does come to matters of collective decision making, representation etc, some of us do raise legitimate issues of conflict of interest etc.... As per Norbert's stipulations, such conflict of interest was indeed very narrowly defined - that a person should not be directly involved as representing commercial or governmental interests, in_the_same_area_as in which they seek to get involved with civil society’s core processes. What is wrong with it? I consider such objections to clarifying civil society's internal processes as contributing to weakening of civil society in this space - which indeed is already very very weak because of this precise reason. It is worst from of double whammy - first use some special forms of multistakeholderism to erode democratic norms and systems, and then deal with that one multi-stakeholder space which could still cause some trouble - civil society, by conveniently declaring it as a 'multistakeholder space' in itself. Brilliant! parminder > > avri > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 20 01:00:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:30:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <030b01ceb577$dd551740$97ff45c0$@gmail.com> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <20130919124046.5362dd8a@quill> <523AF100.4020607@itforchange.net> <020801ceb555$80e98bc0$82bca340$@gmail.com> <030b01ceb577$dd551740$97ff45c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <523BD656.8000407@itforchange.net> On Friday 20 September 2013 02:06 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Nothing personal on my part... The 1500 +/- members of the Community > Informatics community(s) were (as indicated by the various comments) rather > disappointed (even angry) at being excluded from having a voice in the T/A > community. > > For them (i.e. those concerned with the grassroots use of ICTs) the model > evidently wasn't working. > > http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers (check out Feb. - > March of 2013). > > (BTW I'ld be very interested to know the size, composition and activity of > the networks that others involved in these CS and other discussions are > reporting back to... I have been meaning to raise this issue.... The UN document announcing the formation of MAG says that MAG members "are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups". No personal aspersions intended, but I dont think that at least some of the chosen members indeed have such linkages, or take this direction seriously during their tenure in MAG. I would like all self-nominations and other forms of nominations for MAG members, that focusses on this particular point, to be available publicly on the MAG website, so that the 'IGF community' (?) can know who indeed has such linkages and feed them as the role of MAG members is to do. I think all nominations, successful or not, should be put up. Once we step into such public and political arenas we shouldnt be too shy of such things. But in any case nomination forms - and I repeat, with a clear column on 'linkages aspect' - of those who do eventually get nominated to the MAG should be put out publicly.... We must know which groups they are (extensively) linked to. Any appetite in the IGF to initiate such a request? parminder > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:52 PM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of > Internet security standards...) > > Hi, > > Is this all about a personal axe to grind. > > On an issue regarding how the model works, or doesn't work? > > avri > > On 19 Sep 2013, at 14:29, McTim wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: >>> McTim, >>> >>> As you know what you say below is compketely untrue and you should be >>> ashamed for your insinuation. >> >> I didn't "say" anything, merely posed a question. I also insinuated >> nothing at all. >> >> It is clear that they didn't see you as being part of T&A, which isn't >> right IMO, but that is what you get when you create silos. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ekenyanito at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 01:19:52 2013 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 08:19:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?The_BRICS_=93Independent_Intern?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?et=94_Cable=2E_In_Defiance_of_the_=93US-Centric_Internet?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=94?= In-Reply-To: References: <0A83AD37-565F-4201-956A-E928BB8C37A0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Kivuva, I see the hypocricy and citizens can never be sure that their governments will not spy on them especially incase of change of government (and Laws) in their countries. Yes, the current governments may safeguard privacy rights but what of tomorrows governments? "The move is also indeed a potentially dangerous first step in fragmenting the global network." Suresh, I agree indeed, "Chalk this down to marketing hype by a telco salesman that doesn't understand routing." Regards, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Author| Researcher| Humanitarian Website: www.about.me/ekenyanito "Sent from Mobile Office on my Portable Device." On Sep 20, 2013 7:27 AM, "Kivuva" wrote: > It seems politicians are mis-advised. Since anybody can access the > services of the so called BRICS, spying will still be the order of the > day. > > Is anybody seeing the hypocrisy? BRICS countries are also known to spy > on their citizens. > > And what about the real reason people access the internet ... access > to content. Will BRICS build alternative Yahoo, Google, Facebook, > Twitter, Skype and the rest? > > Regards > > On 20/09/2013, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > +1 > > > > as if all on the Internet was merely related to the "tubes". Seems that > > policy makers are not even reading the basics about the NSA schemes. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > > >> This is one of several transcontinental undersea cables. And no > guarantee > >> against spying or interception. Chalk this down to marketing hype by a > >> telco salesman that doesn't understand routing. > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >> On 20-Sep-2013, at 2:49, Diego Rafael Canabarro > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> * > >> > http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-brics-independent-internet-in-defiance-of-the-us-centric-internet/5350272 > >> * > >> > >> *The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff announces publicly the creation > >> of a world internet system INDEPENDENT from US and Britain ( the > >> “US-centric internet”).* > >> > >> *Not many understand that, while the immediate trigger for the decision > >> (coupled with the cancellation of a summit with the US president) was > the > >> revelations on NSA spying, the reason why Rousseff can take such a > >> historic > >> step is that the alternative infrastructure: The BRICS cable from > >> Vladivostock, > >> Russia to Shantou, China to Chennai, India to Cape Town, South Africa > >> to > >> Fortaleza, Brazil, is being built and it’s, actually, in its final > phase > >> of implementation.* > >> > >> *No amount of provocation and attempted “Springs” destabilizations and > >> Color Revolution in the Middle East, Russia or Brazil can stop this > >> process. The huge submerged part of the BRICS plan is not yet known by > >> the > >> broader public. > >> * > >> > >> *Nonetheless it is very real and extremely effective. So real that > >> international investors are now jumping with both feet on this > >> unprecedented real economy opportunity. The change… has already > >> happened.* > >> > >> Brazil plans to divorce itself from the U.S.-centric Internet over > >> Washington’s widespread online spying, a move that many experts fear > will > >> be a potentially dangerous first step toward politically fracturing a > >> global network built with minimal interference by governments. > >> > >> President Dilma Rousseff has ordered a series of measures aimed at > >> greater > >> Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that > the > >> U.S. National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked > into > >> the state-owned Petrobras oil company’s network and spied on Brazilians > >> who > >> entrusted their personal data to U.S. tech companies such as Facebook > and > >> Google. > >> > >> .. > >> > >> *BRICS Cable!* > >> > >> http://www.bricscable.com/(see video) > >> [image: netw_geo] > >> BRICS Cable… a 34 000 km, 2 fibre pair, 12.8 Tbit/s capacity, fibre > optic > >> cable system > >> > >> - For any *global investor*, there is *no crisis* – there is *plenty > >> of growth. It’s just not in the old world* > >> - BRICS is ~*45% of the world’s population* and ~*25% of the > >> world’s GDP* > >> - *BRICS* together create an economy the size of* Italy every > >> year*… that’s the 8th largest economy in the world > >> - The *BRICS* presents *profound opportunities* in *global > >> geopolitics and commerce* > >> > >> > >> - Links Russia, China, India, South Africa, Brazil – the BRICS > >> economies – and the United States. > >> - Interconnect with regional and other continental cable systems in > >> Asia, Africa and South America for improved global coverage > >> - Immediate access to 21 African countries and give those African > >> countries access to the BRICS economies. > >> - Projected ready for service date is mid to second half of 2015. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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) > >> -- > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To 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) > > -- > > > > > -- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva > twitter.com/lordmwesh > kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 20 02:58:26 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:28:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Information Technology Agreement" being negotiated In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <523BF212.7030609@itforchange.net> An important civil society initiative that is doing the rounds. Also enclosed two documents on Information Technology Agreement (ITA) - 2 ..... This shows that there is more to globalisation and people's rights and livelihoods than what normally appears to the starry eyed Internet-ists. Integration may generally be good, however, integration on what and whose terms is always the key question.... And that is the democratic global governance question, that many in the IG space want to bypass in preference to a kind of techno determinism, .. Also gives a pointer to civil society's role. I dont say that trade protectionism is necessarily good, in all situations and at all times.... But quite often trade agreements have very strong impact on people's livelihoods and other rights... Those global companies who would like to promote unrestrained global trade have their interests already well represented. The question is, who will represent the interests of the ordinary people, those who cant be present in the global policy spaces.... That role falls to civil society. And it is easy to see that although not always, quite (very?) often these interests may not be the same as that of the big business. This is the reason for civil society to keep a respectful distance from big business lobbyists, at least in its internal working. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: {Forum Against FTAs} Request for your endorsement against FTA - "Information Technology Agreement" Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:02:11 +0530 From: Mani Candan To: forum-against-ftas at googlegroups.com, peoplesaarc at yahoogroups.com Dear All Please sign on to this important letter on proposed WTO agreement on Information Technology Goods. For details see the message below. Thank you. Regards G.Manicandan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Deborah James* > Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:23 AM Subject: Re: Request for your endorsement against FTA - "Information Technology Agreement" To: Deborah James > Dear Friends, Please see this note below – requesting endorsements for an important letter by our friends at ITUC (developed together with OWINFS) against yet another proposed FTA in the WTO – this time on "Information Technology Goods" aka "kiss your infant industry and jobs creation programs goodbye!" Please send organizational endorsement with country to Georgios Altintzis at georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org by September 23rd. We really need to make a strong showing to governments on this one soon! It has been endorsed by IndustriALL, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND), UNI Global Union, International Union of Food workers (IUF-UITA-IUL), and more (see attached) but now we need YOU! Thank you! - Deborah, Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) ------------------------------------------ Dear colleagues, Estimados compañeros y compañeras, (español abajo) Chers/chères camarades, (français ci-dessous) With very little public knowledge, governments are negotiating to expand the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) of the WTO, which commits countries to assess zero tariffs on myriad manufactured products. We are writing to express our deep concern because ITA-II will reduce policy space for governments to protect infant industries and jobs, and is not a solution to the global jobs crisis. In light of the stagnation of the Doha Round in the WTO, developed countries are seeking to achieve their agenda (getting new market access for their corporations) without having to make concessions to developing countries that would make the global trading system more fair. *Join our sign-on letter*to governments that participate in the expansion of the ITA-II, urging them to be cautious and prudent when negotiating on issues that concern industrial development, policy space, technology transfer, technical standards, market access and security. The sign-on was developed with Our World Is Not For Sale Network (OWINFS), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Global Union ‘IndustriALL’ and the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND). *Please send your organisational endorsement*, with country (or countries) of your group, to Georgios Altintzis at georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org . The deadline for signing on the letter is September 23, so that it can be delivered before the next round of negotiations. The attached letters are in English, Arabic, Spanish, and French versions; we urge you to share this call with your networks, especially as we are on a tight deadline. All the best, Saludos solidarios, Meilleures salutations Yorgos Altintzis, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) ------------------- Sin apenas informar a la opinión pública, los gobiernos están negociando la ampliación del Acuerdo sobre Tecnología de la Información (ATI) de la OMC, que comprometería a los países a aplicar derechos arancelarios nulos a una gran cantidad de productos manufacturados. Nos expresamos nuestra seria preocupación, en particular, porque ATI-II reducirá el espacio político de que disponen los gobiernos para proteger sus industrias nacientes y empleos, y no ofrece una solución a la crisis mundial del empleo. Ante el estancamiento de la Ronda de Doha en la OMC, los países desarrollados están buscando la manera de hacer avanzar sus intereses (tener acceso a nuevos mercados para sus empresas), sin tener que hacer concesiones a los países en desarrollo, concesiones que harían que el sistema mundial del comercio fuera más justo. *Añadan su firma a una carta *que dirigiremos a los gobiernos que participan en la ampliación del ATI-II, instándolos a actuar con la máxima prudencia al negociar sobre cuestiones relativas al desarrollo industrial, espacio político, transferencia de tecnología, normas técnicas, acceso a los mercados y seguridad. Esta carta fue elaborada conjuntamente por la Red ‘Nuestro Mundo No Está en Venta’, la Confederación Sindical Internacional (CSI), el Sindicato Mundial ‘IndustriALL’ y la Red de ONG Árabes para el Desarrollo (ANND). *Les rogamos confirmen el apoyo de su organización*, mencionando el país (o países) de su grupo a Georgios Altintzis (georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org ). El plazo para enviar la carta firmada es el 23 de septiembre, a fin de que pueda entregarse antes de la próxima ronda de negociaciones. Les enviamos en anexo las cartas en ingles, árabe, español y francés. Asimismo les rogamos que difundan este llamado entre todas sus redes rápidamente, ya que el tiempo apremia. ------------------ N’informant pas le publique, les gouvernements négocient l’élargissement de l’Accord sur les technologies de l’information (ATI) de l’OMC, qui engagerait les pays à ramener à zéro les droits de douane pour la fabrication d’une multitude de produits. Nous vous faisons part de notre vive inquiétude, notamment parce que l’Accord réduira l’espace politique dont disposent les gouvernements pour protéger leurs industries naissantes et les emplois et qu’il n’offre pas de solution à la crise de l’emploi mondiale. Compte tenu de la stagnation du cycle de Doha à l’OMC, les pays développés cherchent à réaliser leur programme (obtenir un accès à des nouveaux marchés pour leurs entreprises) sans devoir faire de concessions aux pays en développement, qui rendraient le système mondial du commerce plus équitable. Nous vous invitons *à signer la lettre* que nous adresserons aux gouvernements participant à l’élargissement de l’ATI, les exhortant à agir avec prudence et précaution dans le cadre de la négociation des questions concernant le développement industriel, l’espace politique, le transfert de technologie, les normes techniques, l’accès aux marchés et la sécurité. Cette lettre a été élaborée conjointement avec le réseau « Notre monde n’est pas à vendre » (OWINFS), la Confédération syndicale internationale (CSI), la fédération syndicale internationale IndustriALL et le Réseau d’ONG arabes pour le développement (ANND). Nous vous prions de bien vouloir confirmer le soutien de votre organisation, en indiquant le pays (ou les pays) de votre groupe à Georgios Altintzis(georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org ). Le délai pour envoyer la lettre signée est le 23 septembre, afin qu’elle puisse être remise avant le prochain cycle de négociations. Nous vous annexons la lettre en anglais, en arabe, en espagnol et en français. Nous vous exhortons également à diffuser rapidement cet appel à vos réseaux, compte tenu du très court délai. Yorgos Altintzís Economic & Social Policy ITUC International Trade Union Confederation ΔΣΣ Διεθνής Συνομοσπονδία Συνδικάτων -- Deborah James Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) network Director of International Programs Center for Economic and Policy Research 1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20009 +1.202.293.5380 x111 djames at cepr.net www.cepr.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITA - A Note Mani - March 23.doc Type: application/msword Size: 84992 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITA - sign on - final EN.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.word Size: 10770 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 soekpe at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 04:16:15 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:16:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement on Weakened Crypto (was Re: UK Cryptographers Call For Outing of Deliberately Weakened Protocols, Products) In-Reply-To: <20130919135311.39752446@quill> References: <2ppterjl6c7xhmne73sjl9bm.1379376729567@email.android.com> <20130917085039.7c219d58@quill> <1412ac29bf8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130919135311.39752446@quill> Message-ID: I strongly support the initiative. Best regards. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Sep 19, 2013 12:53 PM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > As long as there is a meaningful and apolitical feedback produced by > > this caucus I couldn't care if it were sent to nist, released as an > > open letter or printed out on a sheet of paper, made into an origami > > boat and floated down the Potomac in the hope that Keith Alexander or > > James clapper sees it. > > Suresh is right that the IGC should release a statement on this topic. > (I don't agree that anything can possibly be apolitical but I suppose > what is meant here is: “broadly acceptable from a wide variety of > political perspectioves”, and I think that that can be done on this > topic.) > > He mentioned in off-list email: "you can say I am happy to take the > lead in drafting this once I get back from traveling, which should be > by the middle of next week". > > Let's support this initiative. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chlebrum at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 04:21:41 2013 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chantal lebrument) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:21:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Protecting the open Internet may require defunding the ITU. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, hi... Serais-tu d'accord pour mettre ton texte sur la "neutralité" dans le site Open-Root histoire de faire une actu? Il faudra que je le traduise en français... Bizz 2013/9/19 Louis Pouzin (well) > How about defunding the NSA first ? > > Again the same old story of the straw and the beam. > Grow up sorcerer's apprentices... > > Louis > - - - > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > FYI. > > > > Protecting the open Internet may require defunding the ITU. Here's how > to do > > it.< > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/18/protecting-the-open-internet-may-require-defunding-the-itu-heres-how-to-do-it/ > > > > By: Eli Dourado > > > > Some American policymakers have suggested cutting funding for the UN's > > telecom agency over Internet governance issues. But that's harder than it > > sounds. > > > > > > -- > > Carolina Rossini > > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > > Open Technology Institute > > New America Foundation > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Sep 20 04:53:39 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:53:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] Registration now open for Best Bits 2013, Bali, 19-20 October Message-ID: <837053D0-BDE6-44BC-9353-3CB71014A42A@ciroap.org> Register for Best Bits 2013 now at http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013 In a year when the confidence of Internet users in the Internet governance status quo was shattered by revelations of systematic and indiscriminate governance surveillance, there is a greater need than ever before for civil society organisations engaged on Internet governance and Internet rights freedom issues to come together to share and strategise. The 2013 meeting of the Best Bits network will address key issues at the intersection of Internet policy and human rights, for direct application over the next twelve months. Through the shared outputs of this meeting and the indirect benefits of participation, we expect to empower civil society organisations and individual activists to create more informed, effective, inclusive and complementary advocacy outcomes, in which the public interest is better reflected in high-level policy discussions and in the outputs that these discussions produce. The meeting will also place Best Bits itself on a firmer institutional footing, in order to enhance its legitimacy as a broad-based civil society advocacy network and improve its long-term sustainability. Objectives To raise the level of shared understanding about related groups, initiatives and issues and their political contexts. To broaden and diversify participation in the initiatives that participants are undertaking individually or in smaller networks (in particular dissolving North-South divides). To amplify the voice of civil society at upcoming multilateral Internet governance and Internet rights meetings. To produce tangible shared outputs addressing pressing current issues that can be used in advocacy at important upcoming Internet governance and Internet rights events. Development of an inclusive and sustainable civil society network for Internet governance and Internet rights issues. Agenda (subject to change) Day 1, Saturday, 19 October 2013 [9:00 -13:00] Global Internet governance principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF Facilitators: Parminder Jeet Singh and Valeria Betancourt What is multi-stakeholderism? Stock-taking of current efforts to compile and explicate high-level Internet policy principles at the IGF and the OECD. Reporting to and from the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Developing a shared civil society position on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements at the global level. Priorities for civil society input to particular sessions of the 2013 IGF. IGF plus - how an IGF with powers to make soft law recommendations would work in a multi-stakeholder environment. Sustainability of the IGF - protecting it from corporate capture, finding a sustainable funding model, reaching out to powerful allies. Issues for developing countries access and national internet governance processes, capacity building and best practice among others. Output: Further submission to the CSTD Working Group on model/s for a new enhanced cooperation framework or mechanism. Output: Statement to the IGF, MAG, UNDESA, etc about the imperative of addressing funding consistency and transparency and other issues related to the future of the IGF. [13:00 - 14:00] Lunch and networking break [14:00 - 18:00] The ITU and the WSIS+10 process Facilitators: Joana Varon Ferraz and Matthew Shears Clearinghouse on Internet governance fora including ITU Council Working Group on international Internet-related public policy issues, Internet Freedom Coalition, London-Budapest-Seoul Conference on Cyberspace. Engagement with the ITU’s Council Working Group on Internet Governance. Visualisation of Internet governance processes towards WSIS+10. What next for the Brazilian proposal on operationalising the role of governments in Internet governance. Civil society participation and substantive issues for the ITU Plenipotentiary 2014. Civil society participation and substantive issues for the WSIS+10 review and the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform. Output: TBC Day 2, Sunday, 20 October 2013 [9:00 - 13:00] State surveillance and human rights Facilitators: Andrew Puddephatt and Deborah Brown Updates on the interventions made so far to the Human Rights Council, US Congress and PCLOB. International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. Implications of trends in the range of invasive and threatening actions being taken by diverse governments and then at the strategies for civil society to respond. Strategising around pressure points for governments, civil society support for whistleblowers, maintaining public rage. Calling on technology companies to embed “human rights defaults” into their technology. Working business models or proof of concepts that can present an alternative to big company commodity services like email or social networking. How competition and consumer protection laws can promote freedom of expression, access to knowledge and privacy. Output: Action plan for next intervention. [13:00 - 14:00] Lunch and networking break [14:00 - 18:00] Best Bits Facilitator: Jeremy Malcolm and Anja Kovacs What are our goals – short presentation and discussion. What are the most appropriate structures to accomplish these goals? (Do we require a charter? A steering committee? Incorporation? What level of transparency? How do we interact with other groups?) What funding is required to support this, and how, and by whom, should we go about raising it? What procedures should we set in place for selecting a steering committee, producing statements, creating working group mailing lists, nominating stakeholder representatives, hosting a Best Bits side-meeting, hosting a Best Bits multi-stakeholder workshop? Launch and demonstration of new website features. Output: Draft statements of goals and procedures. You can register for the meeting whether you are planning to participate remotely or in person. Even if you're not sure that you can make it without assistance, you can register and click the "Subject to funding" checkbox. With thanks to Access, we are crowdfunding to provide support to participants who could not otherwise attend. -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Sep 20 07:26:27 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:26:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] N/Yes In-Reply-To: <837053D0-BDE6-44BC-9353-3CB71014A42A@ciroap.org> References: <837053D0-BDE6-44BC-9353-3CB71014A42A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=37041 for old records: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7388 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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 09:01:27 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 08:01:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN invitation to IGF Bali is online Message-ID: I am sure you have seen by now, but just in case: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/usg-invitation (Thanks, De). Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 20 09:38:15 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:38:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Information Technology Agreement" being negotiated In-Reply-To: <523BF212.7030609@itforchange.net> References: <523BF212.7030609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: And here some background on this from a friend who lives in Geneva: "On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Thiru Balasubramaniam < suryavamsha75 at gmail.com> wrote: > From my limited understanding of this process, I gather that USTR and many > technology companies are pursuing an expanded ITA and they want this to be > concluded before/during the Bali Ministerial. > > Bridges Weekly and the WSJ have reported on this. > > The last I heard, talks were suspended in the summer because China and > some other countries did not agree to the terms. I will try to find out > from my USTR contacts what the latest state of play is. > > http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/172659/ > > > > The negotiations in Geneva have been put on hold due to differences > between China and many of the WTO members involved, Washington says. The > group, which includes the US and EU, has been working to develop a list of > products to add to the agreement for over a year, and had hoped to complete > a final list this month. (See Bridges Weekly, 6 June 2013) > > “The United States is extremely disappointed that it became necessary > today to suspend negotiations to expand the Information Technology > Agreement,” US Trade Representative Michael Froman said in a statement. > “Unfortunately, a diverse group of members participating in the > negotiations determined that China’s current position makes progress > impossible at this stage.” > > Geneva sources speaking to Bridges in recent weeks had noted that > Beijing’s sensitivities regarding certain product lines could prove > difficult to resolve as the group tries to whittle down its draft list to a > consolidated final version. > > In an e-mailed statement later on Wednesday, China stressed that it has > taken a “very serious attitude” toward the ITA talks. > > “We share the same goal with the rest of the participants to conclude the > negotiations before the Ninth Ministerial Conference in December,” China > said. “After intensive and difficult domestic consultations, China has > added its support to 150 tariff lines, or two thirds of the proposed > products, which is a concrete contribution to the negotiations.” > > Expressing “deep regret” for the decision of other members to put the > talks on hold, Beijing said that resuming the talks “should not be > conditioned upon China’s supporting its list of sensitive products.” > > However, Washington has said that it is “hopeful” that Beijing will take > into account the concerns of its negotiating partners, and urged the Asian > country to “revise its position in a way that will allow the prompt > resumption of the negotiations.” > > *Bali in the background* > > The ITA is a plurilateral pact under the aegis of the WTO that eliminates > tariffs on trade in information and communication technology (ICT) > products. Forty-nine of the WTO’s 159 members have signed onto the ITA, if > counting the EU as one member, though the benefits extend to the full WTO > membership. Of these 49, over 20 are currently involved in the expansion > talks. > - See more at: > http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/172659/#sthash.bYvOiJB2.dpuf" > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:58 AM, parminder wrote: > > An important civil society initiative that is doing the rounds. Also > enclosed two documents on Information Technology Agreement (ITA) - 2 ..... > > This shows that there is more to globalisation and people's rights and > livelihoods than what normally appears to the starry eyed Internet-ists. > Integration may generally be good, however, integration on what and whose > terms is always the key question.... And that is the democratic global > governance question, that many in the IG space want to bypass in preference > to a kind of techno determinism, .. > > Also gives a pointer to civil society's role. I dont say that trade > protectionism is necessarily good, in all situations and at all times.... > But quite often trade agreements have very strong impact on people's > livelihoods and other rights... Those global companies who would like to > promote unrestrained global trade have their interests already well > represented. The question is, who will represent the interests of the > ordinary people, those who cant be present in the global policy spaces.... > That role falls to civil society. And it is easy to see that although not > always, quite (very?) often these interests may not be the same as that of > the big business. This is the reason for civil society to keep a respectful > distance from big business lobbyists, at least in its internal working. > > parminder > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: {Forum Against FTAs} Request > for your endorsement against FTA - "Information Technology Agreement" Date: > Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:02:11 +0530 From: Mani Candan To: > forum-against-ftas at googlegroups.com, peoplesaarc at yahoogroups.com > > Dear All > > Please sign on to this important letter on proposed WTO agreement on > Information Technology Goods. For details see the message below. Thank you. > > Regards > G.Manicandan > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Deborah James > Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:23 AM > Subject: Re: Request for your endorsement against FTA - "Information > Technology Agreement" > To: Deborah James > > > Dear Friends, > Please see this note below – requesting endorsements for an important > letter by our friends at ITUC (developed together with OWINFS) against yet > another proposed FTA in the WTO – this time on "Information Technology > Goods" aka "kiss your infant industry and jobs creation programs goodbye!" > Please send organizational endorsement with country to Georgios Altintzis > at georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org by September 23rd. We really need to > make a strong showing to governments on this one soon! It has been endorsed > by IndustriALL, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Arab > NGO Network for Development (ANND), UNI Global Union, International Union > of Food workers (IUF-UITA-IUL), and more (see attached) but now we need > YOU! > > Thank you! > > - Deborah, Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) > > ------------------------------------------ > > Dear colleagues, > > Estimados compañeros y compañeras, (español abajo) > > Chers/chères camarades, (français ci-dessous) > > > > With very little public knowledge, governments are negotiating to expand > the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) of the WTO, which commits > countries to assess zero tariffs on myriad manufactured products. We are > writing to express our deep concern because ITA-II will reduce policy space > for governments to protect infant industries and jobs, and is not a > solution to the global jobs crisis. In light of the stagnation of the Doha > Round in the WTO, developed countries are seeking to achieve their agenda > (getting new market access for their corporations) without having to make > concessions to developing countries that would make the global trading > system more fair. > > > > *Join our sign-on letter* to governments that participate in the > expansion of the ITA-II, urging them to be cautious and prudent when > negotiating on issues that concern industrial development, policy space, > technology transfer, technical standards, market access and security. > > > > The sign-on was developed with Our World Is Not For Sale Network (OWINFS), > the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Global Union > ‘IndustriALL’ and the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND). > > > > *Please send your organisational endorsement*, with country (or > countries) of your group, to Georgios Altintzis at > georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org. The deadline for signing on the letter > is September 23, so that it can be delivered before the next round of > negotiations. The attached letters are in English, Arabic, Spanish, and > French versions; we urge you to share this call with your networks, > especially as we are on a tight deadline. > > > > All the best, > > Saludos solidarios, > > Meilleures salutations > > Yorgos Altintzis, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) > > > > ------------------- > > > > Sin apenas informar a la opinión pública, los gobiernos están negociando > la ampliación del Acuerdo sobre Tecnología de la Información (ATI) de la > OMC, que comprometería a los países a aplicar derechos arancelarios nulos a > una gran cantidad de productos manufacturados. Nos expresamos nuestra seria > preocupación, en particular, porque ATI-II reducirá el espacio político de > que disponen los gobiernos para proteger sus industrias nacientes y > empleos, y no ofrece una solución a la crisis mundial del empleo. Ante el > estancamiento de la Ronda de Doha en la OMC, los países desarrollados están > buscando la manera de hacer avanzar sus intereses (tener acceso a nuevos > mercados para sus empresas), sin tener que hacer concesiones a los países > en desarrollo, concesiones que harían que el sistema mundial del comercio > fuera más justo. > > > > *Añadan su firma a una carta *que dirigiremos a los gobiernos que > participan en la ampliación del ATI-II, instándolos a actuar con la máxima > prudencia al negociar sobre cuestiones relativas al desarrollo industrial, > espacio político, transferencia de tecnología, normas técnicas, acceso a > los mercados y seguridad. > > > > Esta carta fue elaborada conjuntamente por la Red ‘Nuestro Mundo No Está > en Venta’, la Confederación Sindical Internacional (CSI), el Sindicato > Mundial ‘IndustriALL’ y la Red de ONG Árabes para el Desarrollo (ANND). > > > > *Les rogamos confirmen el apoyo de su organización*, mencionando el país > (o países) de su grupo a Georgios Altintzis ( > georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org). El plazo para enviar la carta firmada > es el 23 de septiembre, a fin de que pueda entregarse antes de la próxima > ronda de negociaciones. Les enviamos en anexo las cartas en ingles, árabe, > español y francés. Asimismo les rogamos que difundan este llamado entre > todas sus redes rápidamente, ya que el tiempo apremia. > > > > ------------------ > > > > N’informant pas le publique, les gouvernements négocient l’élargissement > de l’Accord sur les technologies de l’information (ATI) de l’OMC, qui > engagerait les pays à ramener à zéro les droits de douane pour la > fabrication d’une multitude de produits. Nous vous faisons part de notre > vive inquiétude, notamment parce que l’Accord réduira l’espace politique > dont disposent les gouvernements pour protéger leurs industries naissantes > et les emplois et qu’il n’offre pas de solution à la crise de l’emploi > mondiale. Compte tenu de la stagnation du cycle de Doha à l’OMC, les pays > développés cherchent à réaliser leur programme (obtenir un accès à des > nouveaux marchés pour leurs entreprises) sans devoir faire de concessions > aux pays en développement, qui rendraient le système mondial du commerce > plus équitable. > > > > Nous vous invitons *à signer la lettre* que nous adresserons aux > gouvernements participant à l’élargissement de l’ATI, les exhortant à agir > avec prudence et précaution dans le cadre de la négociation des questions > concernant le développement industriel, l’espace politique, le transfert de > technologie, les normes techniques, l’accès aux marchés et la sécurité. > > > > Cette lettre a été élaborée conjointement avec le réseau « Notre monde > n’est pas à vendre » (OWINFS), la Confédération syndicale internationale > (CSI), la fédération syndicale internationale IndustriALL et le Réseau > d’ONG arabes pour le développement (ANND). > > > > Nous vous prions de bien vouloir confirmer le soutien de votre > organisation, en indiquant le pays (ou les pays) de votre groupe à Georgios > Altintzis (georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org). Le délai pour envoyer la > lettre signée est le 23 septembre, afin qu’elle puisse être remise avant le > prochain cycle de négociations. Nous vous annexons la lettre en anglais, en > arabe, en espagnol et en français. Nous vous exhortons également à diffuser > rapidement cet appel à vos réseaux, compte tenu du très court délai. > > > > Yorgos Altintzís > > Economic & Social Policy > > ITUC International Trade Union Confederation > > ΔΣΣ Διεθνής Συνομοσπονδία Συνδικάτων > > > > -- > > Deborah James > Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) network > > Director of International Programs > Center for Economic and Policy Research > 1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20009 > +1.202.293.5380 x111 > djames at cepr.net > www.cepr.net > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 20 09:53:44 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:23:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Information Technology Agreement" being negotiated In-Reply-To: References: <523BF212.7030609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <523C5368.1080106@itforchange.net> Thanks, Carolina... Countries like Brazil and South Africa were never members of ITA -1 (International Technology Agreement -1 under WTO). India did sign it, and there is a great amount of internal consternation lately that it altogetherkilled India's IT manufacturing base. India has recently announced a policy to leverage some exception clauses of ITA -1 - like of public procurement and some security considerations, to provide preferential market access to domestic manufacturers. Interestingly, it seems that India has refused to participate in the ITA round 2 being proposed/ negotiated.... parminder On Friday 20 September 2013 07:08 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > And here some background on this from a friend who lives in Geneva: > > "On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Thiru Balasubramaniam > > wrote: > > From my limited understanding of this process, I gather that USTR > and many technology companies are pursuing an expanded ITA and > they want this to be concluded before/during the Bali Ministerial. > > Bridges Weekly and the WSJ have reported on this. > > The last I heard, talks were suspended in the summer because China > and some other countries did not agree to the terms. I will try to > find out from my USTR contacts what the latest state of play is. > > http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/172659/ > > > > The negotiations in Geneva have been put on hold due to > differences between China and many of the WTO members involved, > Washington says. The group, which includes the US and EU, has been > working to develop a list of products to add to the agreement for > over a year, and had hoped to complete a final list this month. > (See Bridges Weekly, 6 June 2013) > > “The United States is extremely disappointed that it became > necessary today to suspend negotiations to expand the Information > Technology Agreement,” US Trade Representative Michael Froman said > in a statement. “Unfortunately, a diverse group of members > participating in the negotiations determined that China’s current > position makes progress impossible at this stage.” > > Geneva sources speaking to Bridges in recent weeks had noted that > Beijing’s sensitivities regarding certain product lines could > prove difficult to resolve as the group tries to whittle down its > draft list to a consolidated final version. > > In an e-mailed statement later on Wednesday, China stressed that > it has taken a “very serious attitude” toward the ITA talks. > > “We share the same goal with the rest of the participants to > conclude the negotiations before the Ninth Ministerial Conference > in December,” China said. “After intensive and difficult domestic > consultations, China has added its support to 150 tariff lines, or > two thirds of the proposed products, which is a concrete > contribution to the negotiations.” > > Expressing “deep regret” for the decision of other members to put > the talks on hold, Beijing said that resuming the talks “should > not be conditioned upon China’s supporting its list of sensitive > products.” > > However, Washington has said that it is “hopeful” that Beijing > will take into account the concerns of its negotiating partners, > and urged the Asian country to “revise its position in a way that > will allow the prompt resumption of the negotiations.” > > *Bali in the background* > > The ITA is a plurilateral pact under the aegis of the WTO that > eliminates tariffs on trade in information and communication > technology (ICT) products. Forty-nine of the WTO’s 159 members > have signed onto the ITA, if counting the EU as one member, though > the benefits extend to the full WTO membership. Of these 49, over > 20 are currently involved in the expansion talks. > > - See more at: > http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/172659/#sthash.bYvOiJB2.dpuf" > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:58 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > An important civil society initiative that is doing the rounds. > Also enclosed two documents on Information Technology Agreement > (ITA) - 2 ..... > > This shows that there is more to globalisation and people's rights > and livelihoods than what normally appears to the starry eyed > Internet-ists. Integration may generally be good, however, > integration on what and whose terms is always the key question.... > And that is the democratic global governance question, that many > in the IG space want to bypass in preference to a kind of techno > determinism, .. > > Also gives a pointer to civil society's role. I dont say that > trade protectionism is necessarily good, in all situations and at > all times.... But quite often trade agreements have very strong > impact on people's livelihoods and other rights... Those global > companies who would like to promote unrestrained global trade have > their interests already well represented. The question is, who > will represent the interests of the ordinary people, those who > cant be present in the global policy spaces.... That role falls to > civil society. And it is easy to see that although not always, > quite (very?) often these interests may not be the same as that of > the big business. This is the reason for civil society to keep a > respectful distance from big business lobbyists, at least in its > internal working. > > parminder > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: {Forum Against FTAs} Request for your endorsement > against FTA - "Information Technology Agreement" > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:02:11 +0530 > From: Mani Candan > > To: forum-against-ftas at googlegroups.com > , > peoplesaarc at yahoogroups.com > > > > Dear All > > Please sign on to this important letter on proposed WTO agreement > on Information Technology Goods. For details see the message > below. Thank you. > > Regards > G.Manicandan > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Deborah James* > > Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:23 AM > Subject: Re: Request for your endorsement against FTA - > "Information Technology Agreement" > To: Deborah James > > > > Dear Friends, > Please see this note below – requesting endorsements for an > important letter by our friends at ITUC (developed together with > OWINFS) against yet another proposed FTA in the WTO – this time on > "Information Technology Goods" aka "kiss your infant industry and > jobs creation programs goodbye!" Please send organizational > endorsement with country to Georgios Altintzis at > georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org > by September 23rd. We > really need to make a strong showing to governments on this one > soon! It has been endorsed by IndustriALL, International Trade > Union Confederation (ITUC), the Arab NGO Network for Development > (ANND), UNI Global Union, International Union of Food workers > (IUF-UITA-IUL), and more (see attached) but now we need YOU! > > Thank you! > > - Deborah, Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) > > ------------------------------------------ > > Dear colleagues, > > Estimados compañeros y compañeras, (español abajo) > > Chers/chères camarades, (français ci-dessous) > > With very little public knowledge, governments are negotiating to > expand the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) of the WTO, > which commits countries to assess zero tariffs on myriad > manufactured products. We are writing to express our deep concern > because ITA-II will reduce policy space for governments to protect > infant industries and jobs, and is not a solution to the global > jobs crisis. In light of the stagnation of the Doha Round in the > WTO, developed countries are seeking to achieve their agenda > (getting new market access for their corporations) without having > to make concessions to developing countries that would make the > global trading system more fair. > > *Join our sign-on letter*to governments that participate in the > expansion of the ITA-II, urging them to be cautious and prudent > when negotiating on issues that concern industrial development, > policy space, technology transfer, technical standards, market > access and security. > > The sign-on was developed with Our World Is Not For Sale Network > (OWINFS), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the > Global Union ‘IndustriALL’ and the Arab NGO Network for > Development (ANND). > > *Please send your organisational endorsement*, with country (or > countries) of your group, to Georgios Altintzis at > georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org > . The deadline for signing > on the letter is September 23, so that it can be delivered before > the next round of negotiations. The attached letters are in > English, Arabic, Spanish, and French versions; we urge you to > share this call with your networks, especially as we are on a > tight deadline. > > All the best, > > Saludos solidarios, > > Meilleures salutations > > Yorgos Altintzis, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) > > ------------------- > > Sin apenas informar a la opinión pública, los gobiernos están > negociando la ampliación del Acuerdo sobre Tecnología de la > Información (ATI) de la OMC, que comprometería a los países a > aplicar derechos arancelarios nulos a una gran cantidad de > productos manufacturados. Nos expresamos nuestra seria > preocupación, en particular, porque ATI-II reducirá el espacio > político de que disponen los gobiernos para proteger sus > industrias nacientes y empleos, y no ofrece una solución a la > crisis mundial del empleo. Ante el estancamiento de la Ronda de > Doha en la OMC, los países desarrollados están buscando la manera > de hacer avanzar sus intereses (tener acceso a nuevos mercados > para sus empresas), sin tener que hacer concesiones a los países > en desarrollo, concesiones que harían que el sistema mundial del > comercio fuera más justo. > > *Añadan su firma a una carta *que dirigiremos a los gobiernos que > participan en la ampliación del ATI-II, instándolos a actuar con > la máxima prudencia al negociar sobre cuestiones relativas al > desarrollo industrial, espacio político, transferencia de > tecnología, normas técnicas, acceso a los mercados y seguridad. > > Esta carta fue elaborada conjuntamente por la Red ‘Nuestro Mundo > No Está en Venta’, la Confederación Sindical Internacional (CSI), > el Sindicato Mundial ‘IndustriALL’ y la Red de ONG Árabes para el > Desarrollo (ANND). > > *Les rogamos confirmen el apoyo de su organización*, mencionando > el país (o países) de su grupo a Georgios Altintzis > (georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org > ). El plazo para enviar > la carta firmada es el 23 de septiembre, a fin de que pueda > entregarse antes de la próxima ronda de negociaciones. Les > enviamos en anexo las cartas en ingles, árabe, español y francés. > Asimismo les rogamos que difundan este llamado entre todas sus > redes rápidamente, ya que el tiempo apremia. > > ------------------ > > N’informant pas le publique, les gouvernements négocient > l’élargissement de l’Accord sur les technologies de l’information > (ATI) de l’OMC, qui engagerait les pays à ramener à zéro les > droits de douane pour la fabrication d’une multitude de produits. > Nous vous faisons part de notre vive inquiétude, notamment parce > que l’Accord réduira l’espace politique dont disposent les > gouvernements pour protéger leurs industries naissantes et les > emplois et qu’il n’offre pas de solution à la crise de l’emploi > mondiale. Compte tenu de la stagnation du cycle de Doha à l’OMC, > les pays développés cherchent à réaliser leur programme (obtenir > un accès à des nouveaux marchés pour leurs entreprises) sans > devoir faire de concessions aux pays en développement, qui > rendraient le système mondial du commerce plus équitable. > > Nous vous invitons *à signer la lettre* que nous adresserons aux > gouvernements participant à l’élargissement de l’ATI, les > exhortant à agir avec prudence et précaution dans le cadre de la > négociation des questions concernant le développement industriel, > l’espace politique, le transfert de technologie, les normes > techniques, l’accès aux marchés et la sécurité. > > Cette lettre a été élaborée conjointement avec le réseau « Notre > monde n’est pas à vendre » (OWINFS), la Confédération syndicale > internationale (CSI), la fédération syndicale internationale > IndustriALL et le Réseau d’ONG arabes pour le développement (ANND). > > Nous vous prions de bien vouloir confirmer le soutien de votre > organisation, en indiquant le pays (ou les pays) de votre groupe à > Georgios Altintzis(georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org > ). Le délai pour envoyer > la lettre signée est le 23 septembre, afin qu’elle puisse être > remise avant le prochain cycle de négociations. Nous vous annexons > la lettre en anglais, en arabe, en espagnol et en français. Nous > vous exhortons également à diffuser rapidement cet appel à vos > réseaux, compte tenu du très court délai. > > > > Yorgos Altintzís > > Economic & Social Policy > > ITUC International Trade Union Confederation > > ΔΣΣ Διεθνής Συνομοσπονδία Συνδικάτων > > > -- > > Deborah James > Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) network > > Director of International Programs > Center for Economic and Policy Research > 1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20009 > +1.202.293.5380 x111 > djames at cepr.net > www.cepr.net > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > *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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Sep 20 10:43:37 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:43:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Who is Civil Society? In-Reply-To: References: <201309181608.r8IG8rlj009710@atl4mhib25.myregisteredsite.com> <611F2797-DC39-40EA-840F-328EA39DC1A1@acm.org> <523A1ED4.5080806@panamo.eu> <1251278451.3466.1379575583131.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p06> 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Fri Sep 20 10:55:43 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:55:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] UN invitation to IGF Bali is online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1379688943.29984.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi Ginger;   Thank you very much for this update.   Regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Ginger Paque À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Envoyé le : Vendredi 20 septembre 2013 15h01 Objet : [governance] UN invitation to IGF Bali is online I am sure you have seen by now, but just in case: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/usg-invitation (Thanks, De). Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation The latest from Diplo... Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Sep 20 15:24:52 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:24:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Amid NSA Tensions, Brazil May Change Its Internet Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <918DF267-E3C7-466C-B55F-1B9CC119FC5A@istaff.org> Here's an interesting and slightly different perspective on the Brazilian Internet matter - FYI, /John On Sep 18, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-330272/ > > Tensions are flaring between the U.S. and Brazil over spying, and now Brazil is weighing controversial new Internet laws to keep the U.S. government out of its data. > > Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called off a planned state visit to Washington on Tuesday — the first for a Brazilian leader in nearly two decades — in response to news reports that the National Security Agency had spied on her and state-controlled oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro. > > In Brazil, politicians and techies are debating how to address allegations of U.S. spying that have surfaced from documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In addition to straining U.S.-Brazil relations, the allegations have pushed politicians to vote on a landmark law that would regulate the Internet for the first time. > > While the NSA leaks have sparked protests from all over the world, the reaction in Brazil has been especially strong. It has been fueled by a steady stream of news reports on Brazil’s main news network, Globo TV. The stories, which include allegations of spying on Rousseff and Petrobras, have been supplied to the news agency by Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian reporter who first exposed the Snowden documents and who lives in Rio de Janeiro. > > At the center of the data protection debate is a proposed amendment to a bill that will soon be voted on in Brazil’s congress. The law would require Internet companies like Google and Facebook to physically store data about Brazilians in Brazil. > > The bill in its original form, called Marco Civil, establishes guidelines for Internet regulation, including protections for freedom of expression, limits on data retention, and provisions protecting Internet companies from the actions of their users, a number of which have been adopted in many major Internet markets including the U.S. and throughout Europe. > > The proposed amendment appears to be an effort to better secure local user data. Having data stored locally would give the Brazilian government more control over Internet data, and Brazilian courts would more easily be able to issue orders for access to information about Brazilian users of services from foreign companies. > > Rousseff, who supports the proposed amendment, has declared Marco Civil – first proposed on 2011 – to be an emergency measure that must be voted on within 45 days. > > Some experts say the proposed amendment is problematic, and would create numerous complications for Internet service providers. Much Internet data is, by nature, stored globally, and enables the exchange of information and use of Internet products across borders because it is not geographically restricted. > > “It basically ignores the entire Internet, because this data has to circulate, it’s going to be sent to Miami, to Europe. It’s not going to be sitting idle in the servers–that’s [the point] they ignored,” said Ronaldo Lemos, director of a Rio de Janeiro think tank called the Institute for Technology & Society and an advisor to Brazil’s Congress on Media and Free Speech issues. Lemos helped draft the bill in its original form. > > The law could, for example, limit the ability of smaller companies abroad to legally provide their services to Brazilian users without investing in local data centers. > > A Google spokeswoman said that while the company supported the original bill, “the proposed amendment to Marco Civil requiring Internet companies to store Brazilian user data in Brazil risks denying Brazilian users access to great services that are provided by U.S. and other international companies.” > > At the same time, it is also unclear how the proposed amendment could be enforced. Would the regulation apply to Internet users located in Brazil — or Brazilian Internet users everywhere? > > Storing data in Brazil could also raise privacy problems, because the country lacks a law that addresses specific data protection issues. Brazil’s constitution broadly calls for the protection of privacy. > > Marco Civil would establish some privacy protections. For example, it proposes that Internet service providers should retain usage logs no longer than one year. Currently, there is no maximum time limit for data retention in Brazil. > > Privacy advocates say they hope many of issues, including storing medical records, could be addressed in a separate bill. That privacy bill is still being drafted. > > > -- > 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) > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 20 20:46:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 06:16:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BNew_post=5D_In_Wake_of_Latest_Cr?= =?UTF-8?Q?ypto_Revelations=2C_=E2=80=98Everything_is_Suspect=E2=80=99?= In-Reply-To: <52985383.102377.0@wordpress.com> References: <52985383.102377.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <1413dfbb0d8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> --- Forwarded message --- From: Threatpost Date: 20 September 2013 10:48:48 PM Subject: [New post] In Wake of Latest Crypto Revelations, ‘Everything is Suspect’ To: suresh at hserus.net Post : In Wake of Latest Crypto Revelations, ‘Everything is Suspect’ URL : http://threatpost.com/in-wake-of-latest-crypto-revelations-everything-is-suspect/102377 Posted : September 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm Author : Michael Mimoso So now that RSA Security has urged developers to back away from the table and stop using the maligned Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generation (Dual EC DRBG) algorithm, the question begging to be asked is why did RSA use it in the first place? Going back to 2007 and a seminal presentation at the CRYPTO conference ( http://rump2007.cr.yp.to/15-shumow.pdf ) by Dan Shumow and Niels Ferguson, there have been suspicions about Dual EC DRBG primarily because it was backed by the National Security Agency, which initially proposed the algorithm as a standard. Cryptographer Bruce Schneier wrote in a 2007 essay ( https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_strange_sto.html ) that the algorithm contains a weakness that “can only be described as a backdoor.” Given the current climate and revelations about NSA surveillance of Americans, and implications the spy agency manipulated standards efforts, in particular those overseen by NIST, Dual EC DRBG and other crypto standards are going to be scrutinized top to bottom—not to mention the deterioration of trust in any product built on that standard. “I wrote about it in 2007 and said it was suspect. I didn’t like it back then because it was from the government,” Schneier told Threatpost today. “It was designed so that it could contain a backdoor. Back then I was suspicious, now I’m terrified. "We don’t know what’s been tampered with. Nothing can be trusted. Everything is suspect,” Schneier said. Iin his essay, Schneier wrote that not only was the algorithm derided as slow compared to better available algorithms, but it had a bias, meaning that the random numbers it generates aren’t so random. Dual EC DRBG was one of four approved random bit generators in NIST Special Publication 800-90, but it sticks out like a sore thumb. “What Shumow and Ferguson showed is that these numbers have a relationship with a second, secret set of numbers that can act as a kind of skeleton key. If you know the secret numbers, you can predict the output of the random-number generator after collecting just 32 bytes of its output,” Schneier wrote. “To put that in real terms, you only need to monitor one TLS Internet encryption connection in order to crack the security of that protocol. If you know the secret numbers, you can completely break any instantiation of Dual_EC_DRBG. “The researchers don't know what the secret numbers are,” Schneier said. “But because of the way the algorithm works, the person who produced the constants might know; he had the mathematical opportunity to produce the constants and the secret numbers in tandem.” RSA advised its developer customers via email yesterday to no longer use the algorithm, following a similar NIST recommendation ( http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsDrafts.html#SP-800-90-A%20Rev%201%20B%20and%20C ) last week. The algorithm is the default pseudo random number generator in a number of RSA products, including the RSA BSAFE libraries and RSA’s key management product RSA Data Protection Manager. BSAFE is embedded in many applications, providing cryptography, digital certificates and TLS security. RSA said the current product documentation can help developers change the PRNG in their respective implementations. RSA also said it would review its products to determine where the algorithm is in use and make the appropriate changes. RSA CTO Sam Curry told Wired magazine ( http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/rsa-advisory-nsa-algorithm/ ) , which first reported the story yesterday, the algorithm has been part of RSA libraries since 2004, two years before it was approved by NIST. “Every product that we at RSA make, if it has a crypto function, we may or may not ourselves have decided to use this algorithm,” Curry told Wired. “So we’re also going to go through and make sure that we ourselves follow our own advice and aren’t using this algorithm.” Matthew Green, a cryptographer and research professor at Johns Hopkins University, said RSA had no good reason to use the algorithm, and its decision to do so puts the security of any product using the BSAFE library into question. “There's no good reason whatsoever, just none,” Green said. “There was no good reason before the [Crypto 2007] backdoor presentation. It was a poor decision then, and afterwards I kind of think it was malpractice. People have known about this for a long time." RSA’s core product, its SecurID two-factor authentication tokens, was breached in 2011 and data stolen in that attack was used to attack Lockheed Martin and others in the defense industry. RSA said it spent more than $66 million cleaning up from the attack and helping customers. An untold number of RSA SecurID tokens were recalled and replaced. A source close to the matter told Threatpost that SecurID currently does not use the Dual EC DRBG random number generator, nor did it prior to the 2011 attack. In the meantime, the immediate fallout is that we should expect more technology companies to make similar announcements about NIST-approved and NSA-influenced encryption. Experts are concerned too about the damage being inflicted upon NIST as a standards body. It’s likely these revelations will force greater scrutiny on the NIST-NSA relationship and nudge users and providers away from the standard in time. “The U.S. has had an enormous influence on crypto around the world because we have NIST,” Green said in an interview before the RSA news broke. “You could see people break away from NIST, which would hurt everyone, and move to regional standards. That stuff is a problem. “We trust NIST because there are a lot smart people there. If you split up into regions, it’s possible things could get less secure,” Green added. “You could end up with more vulnerabilities; standards get weaker the less effort you put into it.” Schneier agreed that scrutiny will tighten on NIST. “The fact is, NIST has been tarnished badly, and we really need them,” he said. “This is the biggest problem: The NSA has broken the fundamental social contract of the 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 nashton at consensus.pro Sat Sep 21 01:36:34 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 07:36:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Amid NSA Tensions, Brazil May Change Its Internet Laws In-Reply-To: <918DF267-E3C7-466C-B55F-1B9CC119FC5A@istaff.org> References: <918DF267-E3C7-466C-B55F-1B9CC119FC5A@istaff.org> Message-ID: <5A330742-644A-46C8-A467-2343FA39E78B@consensus.pro> It is excellent. I would add something else that it seems virtually everyone in Washington DC is missing: President Rousseff, along with other key people in Brazilian public life, actually fought personally against the military junta, and suffered personally for it: she was jailed and tortured. She learnt at first hand what can happen if secret services get too powerful. This history is one of the reasons why Brazil has a miniscule secret service today with many legal prohibitions in favour of privacy against those services' abuse of their authorities. Lots of leaders talk about freedom and democracy, but few of those have put their lives on the line. Commentators who suggest that everything Brazil is doing is some kind of cynical game to exploit the situation with spying are simply not reading: even a cursory look at Brazilian history - and President Rousseff's personal history - would tell them that's not the case. It would also tell them that saying so compounds the offense that the situation has created. The continuing USG message on spying that "everyone does it" and so all the complaints are somehow completely invalid is deeply foolish: quite a few other countries also have very limited secret services because they've experienced the national nightmares that take place when over-agressive surveillance systems flourish. There are leaders who are taking advantage of this in a cynical way, and there are countries that are crying crocodile tears in public while they spy as aggressively as the USG and with fewer checks and balances. There are quite a few others for which those two things are largely untrue. On 20 Sep 2013, at 21:24, John Curran wrote: > Here's an interesting and slightly different perspective on the Brazilian Internet matter - > > > > FYI, > /John > > > On Sep 18, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > >> http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-330272/ >> >> Tensions are flaring between the U.S. and Brazil over spying, and now Brazil is weighing controversial new Internet laws to keep the U.S. government out of its data. >> >> Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called off a planned state visit to Washington on Tuesday — the first for a Brazilian leader in nearly two decades — in response to news reports that the National Security Agency had spied on her and state-controlled oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro. >> >> In Brazil, politicians and techies are debating how to address allegations of U.S. spying that have surfaced from documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In addition to straining U.S.-Brazil relations, the allegations have pushed politicians to vote on a landmark law that would regulate the Internet for the first time. >> >> While the NSA leaks have sparked protests from all over the world, the reaction in Brazil has been especially strong. It has been fueled by a steady stream of news reports on Brazil’s main news network, Globo TV. The stories, which include allegations of spying on Rousseff and Petrobras, have been supplied to the news agency by Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian reporter who first exposed the Snowden documents and who lives in Rio de Janeiro. >> >> At the center of the data protection debate is a proposed amendment to a bill that will soon be voted on in Brazil’s congress. The law would require Internet companies like Google and Facebook to physically store data about Brazilians in Brazil. >> >> The bill in its original form, called Marco Civil, establishes guidelines for Internet regulation, including protections for freedom of expression, limits on data retention, and provisions protecting Internet companies from the actions of their users, a number of which have been adopted in many major Internet markets including the U.S. and throughout Europe. >> >> The proposed amendment appears to be an effort to better secure local user data. Having data stored locally would give the Brazilian government more control over Internet data, and Brazilian courts would more easily be able to issue orders for access to information about Brazilian users of services from foreign companies. >> >> Rousseff, who supports the proposed amendment, has declared Marco Civil – first proposed on 2011 – to be an emergency measure that must be voted on within 45 days. >> >> Some experts say the proposed amendment is problematic, and would create numerous complications for Internet service providers. Much Internet data is, by nature, stored globally, and enables the exchange of information and use of Internet products across borders because it is not geographically restricted. >> >> “It basically ignores the entire Internet, because this data has to circulate, it’s going to be sent to Miami, to Europe. It’s not going to be sitting idle in the servers–that’s [the point] they ignored,” said Ronaldo Lemos, director of a Rio de Janeiro think tank called the Institute for Technology & Society and an advisor to Brazil’s Congress on Media and Free Speech issues. Lemos helped draft the bill in its original form. >> >> The law could, for example, limit the ability of smaller companies abroad to legally provide their services to Brazilian users without investing in local data centers. >> >> A Google spokeswoman said that while the company supported the original bill, “the proposed amendment to Marco Civil requiring Internet companies to store Brazilian user data in Brazil risks denying Brazilian users access to great services that are provided by U.S. and other international companies.” >> >> At the same time, it is also unclear how the proposed amendment could be enforced. Would the regulation apply to Internet users located in Brazil — or Brazilian Internet users everywhere? >> >> Storing data in Brazil could also raise privacy problems, because the country lacks a law that addresses specific data protection issues. Brazil’s constitution broadly calls for the protection of privacy. >> >> Marco Civil would establish some privacy protections. For example, it proposes that Internet service providers should retain usage logs no longer than one year. Currently, there is no maximum time limit for data retention in Brazil. >> >> Privacy advocates say they hope many of issues, including storing medical records, could be addressed in a separate bill. That privacy bill is still being drafted. >> >> >> -- >> 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) >> -- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sat Sep 21 05:33:07 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 04:33:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Amid NSA Tensions, Brazil May Change Its Internet Laws In-Reply-To: <5A330742-644A-46C8-A467-2343FA39E78B@consensus.pro> References: <918DF267-E3C7-466C-B55F-1B9CC119FC5A@istaff.org> <5A330742-644A-46C8-A467-2343FA39E78B@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <36BCC2E2-BBD3-4307-98CF-E7223DE8A07D@gmail.com> True Nick, true Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 21/09/2013, a las 0:36, Nick Ashton-Hart escribió: > > It is excellent. I would add something else that it seems virtually everyone in Washington DC is missing: > > President Rousseff, along with other key people in Brazilian public life, actually fought personally against the military junta, and suffered personally for it: she was jailed and tortured. She learnt at first hand what can happen if secret services get too powerful. This history is one of the reasons why Brazil has a miniscule secret service today with many legal prohibitions in favour of privacy against those services' abuse of their authorities. > > Lots of leaders talk about freedom and democracy, but few of those have put their lives on the line. Commentators who suggest that everything Brazil is doing is some kind of cynical game to exploit the situation with spying are simply not reading: even a cursory look at Brazilian history - and President Rousseff's personal history - would tell them that's not the case. It would also tell them that saying so compounds the offense that the situation has created. > > The continuing USG message on spying that "everyone does it" and so all the complaints are somehow completely invalid is deeply foolish: quite a few other countries also have very limited secret services because they've experienced the national nightmares that take place when over-agressive surveillance systems flourish. > > There are leaders who are taking advantage of this in a cynical way, and there are countries that are crying crocodile tears in public while they spy as aggressively as the USG and with fewer checks and balances. There are quite a few others for which those two things are largely untrue. > >> On 20 Sep 2013, at 21:24, John Curran wrote: >> >> Here's an interesting and slightly different perspective on the Brazilian Internet matter - >> >> >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> >>> On Sep 18, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>> >>> http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-330272/ >>> >>> Tensions are flaring between the U.S. and Brazil over spying, and now Brazil is weighing controversial new Internet laws to keep the U.S. government out of its data. >>> >>> Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called off a planned state visit to Washington on Tuesday — the first for a Brazilian leader in nearly two decades — in response to news reports that the National Security Agency had spied on her and state-controlled oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro. >>> >>> In Brazil, politicians and techies are debating how to address allegations of U.S. spying that have surfaced from documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In addition to straining U.S.-Brazil relations, the allegations have pushed politicians to vote on a landmark law that would regulate the Internet for the first time. >>> >>> While the NSA leaks have sparked protests from all over the world, the reaction in Brazil has been especially strong. It has been fueled by a steady stream of news reports on Brazil’s main news network, Globo TV. The stories, which include allegations of spying on Rousseff and Petrobras, have been supplied to the news agency by Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian reporter who first exposed the Snowden documents and who lives in Rio de Janeiro. >>> >>> At the center of the data protection debate is a proposed amendment to a bill that will soon be voted on in Brazil’s congress. The law would require Internet companies like Google and Facebook to physically store data about Brazilians in Brazil. >>> >>> The bill in its original form, called Marco Civil, establishes guidelines for Internet regulation, including protections for freedom of expression, limits on data retention, and provisions protecting Internet companies from the actions of their users, a number of which have been adopted in many major Internet markets including the U.S. and throughout Europe. >>> >>> The proposed amendment appears to be an effort to better secure local user data. Having data stored locally would give the Brazilian government more control over Internet data, and Brazilian courts would more easily be able to issue orders for access to information about Brazilian users of services from foreign companies. >>> >>> Rousseff, who supports the proposed amendment, has declared Marco Civil – first proposed on 2011 – to be an emergency measure that must be voted on within 45 days. >>> >>> Some experts say the proposed amendment is problematic, and would create numerous complications for Internet service providers. Much Internet data is, by nature, stored globally, and enables the exchange of information and use of Internet products across borders because it is not geographically restricted. >>> >>> “It basically ignores the entire Internet, because this data has to circulate, it’s going to be sent to Miami, to Europe. It’s not going to be sitting idle in the servers–that’s [the point] they ignored,” said Ronaldo Lemos, director of a Rio de Janeiro think tank called the Institute for Technology & Society and an advisor to Brazil’s Congress on Media and Free Speech issues. Lemos helped draft the bill in its original form. >>> >>> The law could, for example, limit the ability of smaller companies abroad to legally provide their services to Brazilian users without investing in local data centers. >>> >>> A Google spokeswoman said that while the company supported the original bill, “the proposed amendment to Marco Civil requiring Internet companies to store Brazilian user data in Brazil risks denying Brazilian users access to great services that are provided by U.S. and other international companies.” >>> >>> At the same time, it is also unclear how the proposed amendment could be enforced. Would the regulation apply to Internet users located in Brazil — or Brazilian Internet users everywhere? >>> >>> Storing data in Brazil could also raise privacy problems, because the country lacks a law that addresses specific data protection issues. Brazil’s constitution broadly calls for the protection of privacy. >>> >>> Marco Civil would establish some privacy protections. For example, it proposes that Internet service providers should retain usage logs no longer than one year. Currently, there is no maximum time limit for data retention in Brazil. >>> >>> Privacy advocates say they hope many of issues, including storing medical records, could be addressed in a separate bill. That privacy bill is still being drafted. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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) >>> -- >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 22 04:09:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 13:39:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <0B31501A-DBF8-4E60-A760-DD6D0F7F8229@gmail.com> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <0B31501A-DBF8-4E60-A760-DD6D0F7F8229@gmail.com> Message-ID: <523EA5A7.2030401@itforchange.net> On Thursday 19 September 2013 01:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Hi JFC, > > I hear what you are saying and it implies that things must be black > and white. > > In a former life I was legal counsel for a Telco which would have > made me private sector but I was advocating matters of public interest > and not just looking out for the best interests of my employer then. > In fact being involved in civil society from as early as 1987 have > helped me to have a more balanced worldview when dealing with the > corporate world. I used it to engender awareness within my own > organisation on multiple issues. > > I have since left to form a Think Tank which is independent, self > funded. I consider myself to be civil society. I was the inaugural > chair of our National Cyber Security Working Group which is actually > Multistakeholder in composition but reports to My country's Ministry > of Defence. Following handing over, I am now Chairing the Legal Sub > Committee of the Working Group and advise the Government but am NOT on > their payroll. Nothing above bars you from being a full fledged civil society member if that is the primary identity that you would like to carry and present , as I have seen you do. But dont you agree that if you were in the pay of say a commercial entity with a direct interests/ stake in global IG, that would be entirely a different matter. Same issue with someone directly in charge of IG issues with a government. Their views are welcome, they can participate in discussions, but they can hardly be given decision making powers in a civil society groups. > > I don't see any merits that can come from policing the current > subscribers on this list and pigeon holing them into categories. If > people want a pure civil society list, they can easily start one. I dont know what you mean by purity, but if it is about certain standards of avoiding conflict of interest, representing public rather than private interest, and the such, so yes, maybe that is what is needed. That is if indeed some people would like to keep insisting that IGC is a kind of multistakeholder group. There can and should be multistakeholder groups and lists, but while the discussions in the e-space of IGC were always open to all, beyond that it was always meant to be a civil society group..... > I don't like anyone telling me what I am and what I am not. The test > of the matter should be in the levels of contribution on substantive > matters, policy, statements, influence etc. not at all on the substance of them? parminder > Similarly, the attacks on Peter Hellmonds are uncalled for. Whilst > there is a way to highlight your point but you need to be able to > raise it without resorting to attacks. > > For the record, I object to any type of pigeon holing. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:10 AM, JFC Morfin > wrote: > >> At 18:43 18/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Peter H. Hellmonds >> > wrote: >>> >>> > Perhaps we need to make a phone call to clarify >>> > things. I'll send you my number in a private mail. We can then >>> > discuss offline and inform the list of the outcome. >>> >>> Update: Peter and I have talked and have amicably resolved the >>> issue between us. >> >> I am glad of that. However, the matter raised key general issues that >> have to be discussed outside of friendly phone talk. I concatenate them. >> >> *On 09/17/2013 06:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > Civil society is necessarily amorphous. >> >> *There would then be NO interest in it, except for some to try to >> manipulate it or use it as an alibi for their own agenda. The Civil >> society (cf. proposed definition below) is a collective IQ, a source >> of precious transcendental critics and suggestions and a pool of >> competent lead users who form the people's last line of defense and >> protection reserve when an aggression against their common rights >> crosses the limits their normal life entitles them to. >> >> *> Trying to force it into a definition will lead to its just not >> existing. >> *to what Karl commented; *I agree with this 100%. Each person is a >> bundle of self interests and self conflicts. Each person works that >> out in his/her own way. >> >> *I am sorry, but I 100% disagree with all of this subjectivism >> introduced by Peter Hellmonds sentence *“When I served in the IGF MAG >> as a business representative I've always also considered myself a >> part of a civil society”. >> >> *Peter, being able to understand other stakeholders’ certainly is of >> some help toward inter-comprehension, but what you express was a >> cause for you to resign as not being trustable. What you express here >> is exactly the same as the NSA engineers being trusted in a normative >> meeting as engineers, but behaving as NSA employees, with the >> aggrieving factor that their colleagues could know who their employer >> was, and the other MAG representatives had no way to know your >> motivations. >> >> Your position was perfectly ethical had you been a Judge, an expert, >> or a member pronouncing himself in his heart and soul. However, you >> were not. You were a business stakeholder’s group representative. In >> your heart and soul you should have represented the best interests of >> businesses. Otherwise, how could you negotiate with other group >> resilient sustainable agreements, if these agreements are biased in >> favor of Civil Society? No side can trust you and your deliverables. >> >> This is the difficulty of multistakeholderism and the difference >> between its polycracy and democracy. >> >> In democracy, you are a person representing people through your vote >> by majority. In polycracy, you are an authoritative competence >> advocating the interest of a constituency toward a consensus that is >> to be uncovered (a consensus is to actually pre-exist under >> conditions to clarify and agree, otherwise it will never hold). In >> democracy, you are a person, in polycracy you are an advocate. >> >> >> This is why I 100% agree with Norbert, except when he proposes: “*A >> logical consequence of this is the need for a new category >> “multi/other”. I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” >> category (which by definition does not have a specific “respective >> role” in Internet governance, but which is needed to ensure that >> everyone who does not neatly fit into one of the categories with >> specific “respective roles can still fully participate in the >> discourse) violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the Tunis >> Agenda.” >> >> *A barrister has his own opinions, and can express them outside of >> the court in wearing his own cap. What we share is to reach robust, >> sustainable, efficient consensuses, the esthetic of which is people >> centered. Our ethic is to do whatever is transparently good to that >> end. I see no problem if an NSA member tells me: “here is my >> proposition as an NSA employee”, and adds “as a civil right expert I >> advise you to try to find something stronger”. Different caps. >> >> Peter, when you say *“Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral >> conscience. And I do not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of >> the company just by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that >> is involved in laying the physical underpinning of the Internet.”*, I >> am sorry but if you keep my respect, you lose my trust. Your paycheck >> draft by this business is for helping them to make the internet work >> better so that they make more money. >> >> - Either this is not their target and if you wish to stay with them >> you are to refuse to represent them, >> - or this is actually their target and you do to them and us a >> disservice in not trying as much as you can (including in publishing >> it as long as you did not obtain it, so that they know if they want >> to keep you as a representative) to have them share your ideas, so >> that their ideas that you represent are also yours. >> >> Another point that I would like to make in addition to Norbert is >> that you took one of the representative places. Who put you there? >> Why? Who would have been picked otherwise? With the same ideas? >> >> jfc >> >> * >> * >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Sep 22 14:05:04 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 14:05:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Britain's GCHQ Hacked Belgian Telecoms Firm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <020701ceb7be$4bb586a0$e32093e0$@gmail.com> From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 4:34 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Britain's GCHQ Hacked Belgian Telecoms Firm http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/british-spy-agency-gchq-hacked-be lgian-telecoms-firm-a-923406.html SPIEGEL ONLINE 09/20/2013 Britain's GCHQ Hacked Belgian Telecoms Firm A cyber attack on Belgacom raised considerable attention last week. Documents leaked by Edward Snowden and seen by SPIEGEL indicate that Britain's GCHQ intelligence agency was responsible for the attack. Documents from the archive of whistleblower Edward Snowden indicate that Britain's GCHQ intelligence service was behind a cyber attack against Belgacom, a partly state-owned Belgian telecoms company. A "top secret" Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) presentation seen by SPIEGEL indicate that the goal of project, conducted under the codename "Operation Socialist," was "to enable better exploitation of Belgacom" and to improve understanding of the provider's infrastructure. The presentation is undated, but another document indicates that access has been possible since 2010. The document shows that the Belgacom subsidiary Bics, a joint venture between Swisscom and South Africa's MTN, was on the radar of the British spies. Belgacom, whose major customers include institutions like the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament, ordered an internal investigation following the recent revelations about spying by the United States' National Security Agency (NSA) and determined it had been the subject of an attack. The company then referred the incident to Belgian prosecutors. Last week, Belgian Prime Minister Elio di Rupo spoke of a "violation of the public firm's integrity." When news first emerged of the cyber attack, suspicions in Belgium were initially directed at the NSA. But the presentation suggests that it was Belgium's own European Union partner Britain that is behind "Operation Socialist," even though the presentation indicates that the British used spying technology for the operation that the NSA had developed. According to the slides in the GCHQ presentation, the attack was directed at several Belgacom employees and involved the planting of a highly developed attack technology referred to as a "Quantum Insert" ("QI"). It appears to be a method with which the person being targeted, without their knowledge, is redirected to websites that then plant malware on their computers that can then manipulate them. Some of the employees whose computers were infiltrated had "good access" to important parts of Belgacom's infrastructure, and this seemed to please the British spies, according to the slides. The documents also suggest that GCHQ continued to probe the areas of infrastructure to which the targeted employees had access. The undated presentation states that they were on the verge of accessing the Belgians' central roaming router. The router is used to process international traffic. According to the presentation, the British wanted to use this access for complex attacks ("Man in the Middle" attacks) on smartphone users. The head of GCHQ's Network Analysis Centre (NAC) described Operation Socialist in the presentation as a "success." When contacted by SPIEGEL reporters, GCHQ provided no comment. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. !DSPAM:2676,523e02c892531204417535! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Sep 22 21:10:42 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:10:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Trust Message-ID: Large scale trust may have eroded very seriously in the virtual world, but look again - it's building back from the bottom up :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24163742 Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Sep 23 05:33:48 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:33:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Webinar] Is Brazil leading a new revolution in global digital policy? References: <89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d6d115c7879.20130923091216@mail71.us4.mcsv.net> Message-ID: Dear All, In case you are interested in attending this Webinar, details are below. Kind Regards, Sala Begin forwarded message: > From: Diplo Webinars > Date: September 23, 2013, 9:12:22 PM GMT+12:00 > To: > Subject: [Webinar] Is Brazil leading a new revolution in global digital policy? > Reply-To: Diplo Webinars > > > Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your browser > > September Internet governance webinar > Is Brazil leading a new revolution > in global digital policy? > > Dear friends, > > We would like to invite you to our September IG webinar, next Thursday, 26th September, at 13:00 GMT, with Marília Maciel, director of the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV of Brazil). > > Brazil is playing an increasingly important role in global digital policy. Recent events continue to shape Brazil’s position on many issues, including political developments in reaction to the NSA leaks, its bilateral relations with the United States, news about the deployment of a BRICS-only undersea cable, and its renewed ability to influence the global Internet governance (IG) regime. Is Brazil then leading a new revolution? > > DiploFoundation and the Getulio Vargas Foundation will present a just-in-time webinar to address the latest development in digital politics. Our speaker Marília Maciel will explore, among other issues: > Whether the Brazilian president’s cancelled US visit is a sign of dissatisfaction? Will this impinge on Brazil's bilateral relations with the USA? > How will the NSA disclosures impact Brazil’s political and regulatory landscape? > Will the latest developments influence Brazil’s strong support of multistakeholderism? How will it influence global digital policy? > What developments can we expect from initiatives in South America, and joint initiatives with Russia, India, China, and South Africa? > Join us next Thursday for our not-to-be-missed September IG webinar. Webinar participants will be able to discuss the topic with our speaker. Other special guests may be invited to the webinar. Attendance is free; registration is required. To read more about the webinar, including a background note, click here. To participate, please fill in the registration form. > > Looking forward to e-seeing you! > Diplo's IG webinars team > Like us on FaceBook > Follow us on Twitter > Our website > Our network > > Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved. > You are receiving this email because you expressed an interest in DiploFoundation's webinars. > [ unsubscribe from this list | update your subscription preferences | forward to a friend ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Sep 23 20:33:02 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:33:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) In-Reply-To: <523EA5A7.2030401@itforchange.net> References: <20130917093213.6088b596@quill> <523866FD.9090901@digsys.bg> <20130917192258.01dc481e@quill> <2AEA51C6-C13B-4C44-B959-DBB665820B0F@digsys.bg> <20130918113918.62d04238@quill> <6D752BF1-3010-4726-8F56-2B38ED8FD2E5@hellmonds.eu> <20130918170404.55979b57@quill> <20130918184358.4bc99d8e@quill> <0B31501A-DBF8-4E60-A760-DD6D0F7F8229@gmail.com>,<523EA5A7.2030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B274CD2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, If I may weigh in from an academic perspective...although perhaps my credibility is undermined by my quote below from Wikipedia; which I paraphrase below: Civil society to the Greeks was everyone not the state. Hegel and Marx thought of civil society as upholding the capitalist superstructure. Meaning both business and social interests and individuals. More recent writers have drawn the line some are suggesting here, excluding business. In sum, when carrying this discussion further on who is or is not able to claim themselves to be part of civil society, this professor suggests for our homework assignment we should first review at the least wikipedia's definition of civil society, if not any of the original cited authors. I also suggest we specify in commenting on the list on this topic whether we subscribe to a classical Greek, Hegelian, Marxist, Gramscian, or other contemporary definition of civil society....which Wikipedia suggests is derived from a mis-understanding of Gramsci. (And of course, since Wikipedia say it is so...it may be so. ; ) I am with Sala in suggesting ambiguity comes with our virtual civil society territory. Lee PS: And I quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society): Departing somehow from Marx, Gramsci did not consider civil society as coterminous with the socio-economic base of the state. Rather, Gramsci located civil society in the political superstructure. He viewed civil society as the vehicle for bourgeois hegemony, when it just represents a particular class. He underlined the crucial role of civil society as the contributor of the cultural and ideological capital required for the survival of the hegemony of capitalism.[37] Rather than posing it as a problem, as in earlier Marxist conceptions, Gramsci viewed civil society as the site for problem-solving. Misunderstanding Gramsci, the New Left assigned civil society a key role in defending people against the state and the market and in asserting the democratic will to influence the state.[38] At the same time, Neo-liberal thinkers consider civil society as a site for struggle to subvert Communist and authoritarian regimes.[39] Thus, the term civil society occupies an important place in the political discourses of the New Left and Neo-liberals. ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 4:09 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] stakeholder categories (was Re: NSA sabotage of Internet security standards...) On Thursday 19 September 2013 01:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Hi JFC, I hear what you are saying and it implies that things must be black and white. In a former life I was legal counsel for a Telco which would have made me private sector but I was advocating matters of public interest and not just looking out for the best interests of my employer then. In fact being involved in civil society from as early as 1987 have helped me to have a more balanced worldview when dealing with the corporate world. I used it to engender awareness within my own organisation on multiple issues. I have since left to form a Think Tank which is independent, self funded. I consider myself to be civil society. I was the inaugural chair of our National Cyber Security Working Group which is actually Multistakeholder in composition but reports to My country's Ministry of Defence. Following handing over, I am now Chairing the Legal Sub Committee of the Working Group and advise the Government but am NOT on their payroll. Nothing above bars you from being a full fledged civil society member if that is the primary identity that you would like to carry and present , as I have seen you do. But dont you agree that if you were in the pay of say a commercial entity with a direct interests/ stake in global IG, that would be entirely a different matter. Same issue with someone directly in charge of IG issues with a government. Their views are welcome, they can participate in discussions, but they can hardly be given decision making powers in a civil society groups. I don't see any merits that can come from policing the current subscribers on this list and pigeon holing them into categories. If people want a pure civil society list, they can easily start one. I dont know what you mean by purity, but if it is about certain standards of avoiding conflict of interest, representing public rather than private interest, and the such, so yes, maybe that is what is needed. That is if indeed some people would like to keep insisting that IGC is a kind of multistakeholder group. There can and should be multistakeholder groups and lists, but while the discussions in the e-space of IGC were always open to all, beyond that it was always meant to be a civil society group..... I don't like anyone telling me what I am and what I am not. The test of the matter should be in the levels of contribution on substantive matters, policy, statements, influence etc. not at all on the substance of them? parminder Similarly, the attacks on Peter Hellmonds are uncalled for. Whilst there is a way to highlight your point but you need to be able to raise it without resorting to attacks. For the record, I object to any type of pigeon holing. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:10 AM, JFC Morfin > wrote: At 18:43 18/09/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: Peter H. Hellmonds > wrote: > Perhaps we need to make a phone call to clarify > things. I'll send you my number in a private mail. We can then > discuss offline and inform the list of the outcome. Update: Peter and I have talked and have amicably resolved the issue between us. I am glad of that. However, the matter raised key general issues that have to be discussed outside of friendly phone talk. I concatenate them. On 09/17/2013 06:22 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Civil society is necessarily amorphous. There would then be NO interest in it, except for some to try to manipulate it or use it as an alibi for their own agenda. The Civil society (cf. proposed definition below) is a collective IQ, a source of precious transcendental critics and suggestions and a pool of competent lead users who form the people's last line of defense and protection reserve when an aggression against their common rights crosses the limits their normal life entitles them to. > Trying to force it into a definition will lead to its just not existing. to what Karl commented; I agree with this 100%. Each person is a bundle of self interests and self conflicts. Each person works that out in his/her own way. I am sorry, but I 100% disagree with all of this subjectivism introduced by Peter Hellmonds sentence “When I served in the IGF MAG as a business representative I've always also considered myself a part of a civil society”. Peter, being able to understand other stakeholders’ certainly is of some help toward inter-comprehension, but what you express was a cause for you to resign as not being trustable. What you express here is exactly the same as the NSA engineers being trusted in a normative meeting as engineers, but behaving as NSA employees, with the aggrieving factor that their colleagues could know who their employer was, and the other MAG representatives had no way to know your motivations. Your position was perfectly ethical had you been a Judge, an expert, or a member pronouncing himself in his heart and soul. However, you were not. You were a business stakeholder’s group representative. In your heart and soul you should have represented the best interests of businesses. Otherwise, how could you negotiate with other group resilient sustainable agreements, if these agreements are biased in favor of Civil Society? No side can trust you and your deliverables. This is the difficulty of multistakeholderism and the difference between its polycracy and democracy. In democracy, you are a person representing people through your vote by majority. In polycracy, you are an authoritative competence advocating the interest of a constituency toward a consensus that is to be uncovered (a consensus is to actually pre-exist under conditions to clarify and agree, otherwise it will never hold). In democracy, you are a person, in polycracy you are an advocate. This is why I 100% agree with Norbert, except when he proposes: “A logical consequence of this is the need for a new category “multi/other”. I think that the introduction of such a “multi/other” category (which by definition does not have a specific “respective role” in Internet governance, but which is needed to ensure that everyone who does not neatly fit into one of the categories with specific “respective roles can still fully participate in the discourse) violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the Tunis Agenda.” A barrister has his own opinions, and can express them outside of the court in wearing his own cap. What we share is to reach robust, sustainable, efficient consensuses, the esthetic of which is people centered. Our ethic is to do whatever is transparently good to that end. I see no problem if an NSA member tells me: “here is my proposition as an NSA employee”, and adds “as a civil right expert I advise you to try to find something stronger”. Different caps. Peter, when you say “Just like yourself, I have an ethical and moral conscience. And I do not leave all that behind me at the doorsteps of the company just by virtue of drawing a paycheck from a business that is involved in laying the physical underpinning of the Internet.”, I am sorry but if you keep my respect, you lose my trust. Your paycheck draft by this business is for helping them to make the internet work better so that they make more money. - Either this is not their target and if you wish to stay with them you are to refuse to represent them, - or this is actually their target and you do to them and us a disservice in not trying as much as you can (including in publishing it as long as you did not obtain it, so that they know if they want to keep you as a representative) to have them share your ideas, so that their ideas that you represent are also yours. Another point that I would like to make in addition to Norbert is that you took one of the representative places. Who put you there? Why? Who would have been picked otherwise? With the same ideas? jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 24 01:08:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:38:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads Message-ID: <52411E34.1080904@itforchange.net> See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568 It is about putting restrictions on some kinds of ads on Internet services, applications etc that aimed at minors. It also allows minors to remove content about themselves. Whatever agreement or disagreement people may have with this particular law, one important issue here is that California can make such law, but not states in other countries, not even national governments. I mean it is so so difficult for them to enforce it, that it may not be worth attempting it. At other places, big companies may simply blackmail them by threats of withdrawal as Google did with governemnt of Taipei a few years back. (which they wont do with Gov of California).... This is how policy space for non US gov entities is shrinking fast, and what it means is that political and democratic space of our world is shrinking... A key global IG issue if there ever was one. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 24 01:48:13 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:18:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'Not surprising India has become an important surveillance target' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5241279D.6080703@itforchange.net> from the Hindu 'Not surprising India has become an important surveillance target' Shobhan Saxena GLENN GREENWALD: ‘The U.S.’s primary tactic is to try to scare citizens of the world by constantly manipulating the threat posed in order to induce submission … This has been particularly exposed with these NSA stories.’ AP GLENN GREENWALD: ‘The U.S.’s primary tactic is to try to scare citizens of the world by constantly manipulating the threat posed in order to induce submission … This has been particularly exposed with these NSA stories.’ /For some time now, people around the world have suspected their emails are being read and phone conversations tapped into by government agencies. But there never was any proof. Everybody’s worst fears came true in June when Edward Snowden, a system administrator with the U.S. National Security Agency, disclosed information about mass electronic surveillance programmes being run by the agency since 2007. *Glenn Greenwald *broke that story for The Guardian. / /Since then the American journalist, who lives in Rio de Janeiro, has done a series of hard-hitting stories that have exposed the reach of the NSA’s secret surveillance operations. His expose about the NSA snooping on Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff’s phones and email has already led to the cancellation of her state dinner at the White House. / /Now collaborating with /The Hindu/on a series of stories about the NSA’s spying activities in India, Mr. Greenwald spoke to *Shobhan Saxena *in the course of their meetings in hotel lobbies and at his house, which he shares with his partner David Miranda, 10 dogs and one cat, in the middle of Tijuca forest in Rio. Excerpts from the interview: / *What do you think has been the most important impact of your stories?* It’s that not only Americans, but people around the world, now understand the true aim of the U.S. surveillance system: collect, store, and analyse all forms of electronic communication between human beings. In other words, their goal is, by definition, to eliminate privacy globally. And this realisation has produced profound and intense debates on every continent about the value of individual privacy and internet freedom, the dangers posed by secret U.S. surveillance, and more broadly, the role the U.S. plays in the world. *Your reports have revealed the United States to be a massive surveillance state. This image is very different from the US own projection of itself as beacon of individual liberty, freedom and protector of individual privacy. How have these revelations affected the image of U.S. in the world?* In the beginning, people assumed that the primary focus (of our reports) was going to be on what the National Security Agency is doing and what the U.S. surveillance policy is, and what was going to change was how Americans thought about spying and how people in the world thought about privacy. But what actually changed the most from these stories was how people think about America generally — exactly the way you just asked. These stories revealed a surveillance programme that functioned without the knowledge of not just people around the world but also of Americans who supposedly hold their government democratically accountable; the U.S., it is clear, does not observe any legal limits or ethical constraints in its pursuit of power. It’s completely contrary to the image it presents to the world. *Is this process irreversible because both the Republicans and Democrats in the US now talk the same language on matters of national security? The way the Obama administration has reacted to the reports, it seems there is no soul searching happening in Washington.* I don’t think anything is irreversible when it comes to political trends. We saw in the last three to four years how the most entrenched tyrannies in the Arab world were weakened, subverted and even uprooted. There are all kinds of examples in history of radical changes that people never anticipated. So, I don’t think it’s irreversible. I do think it’s difficult to change it because of this bipartisan embrace by both the parties of not just the national security state in general but also America’s role in the world as an empire. But one of the things you are already seeing in the five-six weeks since we have been reporting the story is a scrambling of partisan divisions. So, half of the most vocal support for the reports has come from Republicans, conservatives and libertarians; the other half has come from liberals and people on the left. It really has scrambled the normal ideological categories in ways that’s unprecedented; you also see in public opinion polls a huge increase in the number of people who are genuinely concerned about the excesses of the surveillance state, civil liberty abuses and privacy infringements. All this suggests that change is probably inevitable when it comes to these sorts of questions as a result of these disclosures. *Your partner David Miranda was detained in London under an anti-terror law. Do you think they were really after the documents he was carrying or were they trying to intimidate you? * There is no question their primary goal was intimidation. If their goal was to take what he was carrying, they could have done that by detaining him for 9 minutes. Instead, they detained him for 9 hours, the maximum allowed by law. And they not only detained him, but did so under an “anti-terrorism” law. Especially for non-U.S.-and-U.K. citizens, it’s an incredibly terrorising thing to hear that you’re being detained by the U.K. pursuant to a “terrorism” investigation given that country’s awful human rights record over the last decade. A U.S. official told /Reuters/ that the purpose of David’s detention was to “send a message” to those of us reporting on these stories that we should stop. It was a thuggish attack on press freedoms. *There have been attempts in the U.S. to criminalise journalism, as happened in the case of /Fox News /and /AP/? Doesn’t this bother you? * They are already succeeding in creating a climate of fear against whistleblowers and sources. That’s why some federal lawyers have told me that, at least for now, I shouldn’t go back to the U.S. and I should not try to enter the country. It’s pretty extraordinary for American lawyers to tell an American journalist that you should not try to re-enter your own country for fear that they may try and arrest you. *So you have not been to the U.S. since you published the stories?* No, I have not. I have been to Hong Kong and back to Brazil through Dubai. I am not saying that I will get arrested, but just the fact that it’s even on the table for discussion and that a lot of people feel publicly free to advocate this without losing their position or their credibility, makes it a real possibility. When you talk about being charged by the US government under espionage statutes, it’s not a risk that you can casually dismiss. *Why do you think the NSA has targeted the diplomatic missions and other interests of India, which has friendly ties with the U.S.? * India is an increasingly important country in virtually every realm: economic, political, diplomatic and military. The U.S. goal is to subject virtually everyone to mass surveillance, but it is not surprising that India has become an important surveillance target. Ultimately, it’s a question of power: the more the US knows about what other countries are doing — not just their governments but their companies and populations — the more power the U.S. has vis-à-vis that country. *One of the most shocking revelations in your reports was the involvement of several western democracies like the U.K. and Germany in these secret surveillance programmes. It seems few countries are willing to stand up to the U.S.* I think the world can be very broadly divided, when it comes to the relationship of states with the United States, in three categories. One is states that are incredibly subservient to the U.S. and always capitulate to its dictates. The other part is the states that are generally hostile to the U.S., and then there is a majority of countries in the middle that are independent. They ally with the U.S. if their interests suggest they should and they oppose the U.S. if they have to. Most European states are very squarely in the first camp, namely the governments that always capitulate meekly and subserviently to the dictates of the United States. So you saw lots of feigned anger and artificial indignation when these revelations first emerged because the citizens of European states were targeted and they actually care about privacy. So the governments had to pretend to be angry but what you saw was their true colours when U.S. basically told them to deny airspace rights to the plane of (Bolivian President) Evo Morales. They complied in really extreme ways by denying the airspace to the president of a sovereign country. The reason they did that is they are complicit in it: virtually all these western European governments; whereas in Latin America and to some an extent in Asia, certainly in the Middle East in some countries, there is a lot more independence. So the anger that is being expressed is to some degree artificial but it’s also more genuine. *There seems to be hardly any anger against technology firms like Facebook, Skype, Google, which almost collaborated with the U.S. government in collecting information about people around the world. Now these firms claim they didn’t have any choice. Did they have the option of saying ‘no’ to the NSA? * There are legal frameworks that require them to collaborate with the US government in its surveillance programme but they have gone beyond what’s legally required, just like the telecom companies did during the Bush years. The reason is that they benefit massively in all sorts of ways from positive relationships with the government. Just the benefits they get from collaborating with the U.S. government in terms of this massive spying programme vastly outweigh what they think are the costs to their customer relation or to their goodwill in the world from doing that. One of the reasons they made that calculation was because they have been able to do all this in secret; nobody knew they were cooperating to this extent and one of the benefits of disclosing what they have been doing is that it alters the calculus for them because if people start perceiving that these companies are so complicit with the US government and their communications are not safe, they will start looking for alternatives. The problem right now is that Facebook, Google and Skype are such mammoth entities that it’s almost impossible to avoid using them. If you are a 22-year-old, you may be bothered by the fact that Facebook is invading your privacy, but when all your friends, all your peers, all your employers are on Facebook and demand you to be, it’s very difficult to take a principled stand and say ‘I am not going to continue to use Facebook or Skype’. *Your reports have in a way also exposed the so-called mainstream media like the /New York Times/ and CNN, which ran more stories about Edward Snowden’s personal life than the U.S. surveillance programme. Even you came under attack in some newspaper columns. Do you think the space for good journalism and investigative reporting is shrinking in global media?* Yes and no. I think it was completely predictable what they were going to do. Even before we disclosed the identity of Snowden I ran a column with the intent of predicting that they would try to distract attention from the revelations because serving the government’s interest is what their function is. They are going to demonise him along with anybody, including journalists, who work with him for transparency. That’s what they do in every single case. They did that to Daniel Ellsberg 30 years ago, 40 years ago. They did that to Wikileaks, Bradley Manning. We knew they are going to do that to Snowdon and eventually to me. But it hasn’t really mattered. The space for investigative reporting in some sense has diminished because of how corporatized mass media has become, but the way the internet has given rise to all sorts of alternative models the space for investigative journalism is larger than it ever was. I am a creature of the internet. I started my own blog seven years ago and even now when I work for the /Guardian/, I did so by demanding total editorial independence. I have my own voice that I am not worried about. My career doesn’t depend upon currying favour with people in power. I was able to develop this alternative model because of the power of the internet and finding my own audience and not having to rely on these big institutions. There are lots of other people who are doing that in all different realms, in all different cultures, in all different places on the planet and it has definitely transformed journalism. There is a lot of soul-searching going on inside the /New York Times/ and other media outlets on why they were completely frozen out of one of the biggest — if not the biggest — media scoops in many years. And the reason is that Snowden didn’t trust them to report the story aggressively. He didn’t trust them to resist the demands of the US government, just like Bradley Manning didn’t trust the /New York Times/ or /Washington Post/ and went to Wikileaks. So you are going to see more of that as more stories like this end with places or people like me or with Wikileaks, rather than in the /New York Times/ and /Washington Post/. Their model of journalism is increasingly going to become discredited. It’s happening already. *You are working on a book on this whole affair. Is the book also about Edward Snowden? * Only a part of the book is going to be about my time, my story about how I ended up involved in this story and how I ended up with developing a relationship with Snowden as my source, how I got the documents, how I reported them, my experiences in Hong Kong and afterwards. But the bulk of the book is going to be about what the US has done in constructing this surveillance state and what the implications and dangers of it are. There are going to be new revelations as well based on the documents. *Some people have suggested that Mr. Snowden could be a false flag. Naomi Wolf even wrote an article arguing that this all could be a set-up. Did you have any doubt whatsoever about Snowden or authenticity of the documents before you sat down to write your stories? * No, to buy this theory would be so stupid that I didn’t spend a second of my time and energy on it. Part of what we all do as human beings is based on intuition. You have to make judgments about who is lying to you and who is telling the truth, who is not credible, who is tricking you and who is being authentic. When I went to Hong Kong, my only goal for the first four or five days was to understand everything I possibly could about Edward Snowden and to ensure that there was nothing he was hiding and he was genuine about what he was claiming. As I had never met him before, I spent dozens and dozens of hours with him in the first week alone. Speaking face to face with him — four feet away from where he was sitting and looking into my eyes — and I had no doubt about what he said and who he was. I would rather have people who are excessively sceptical rather than excessively gullible but that particular theory deserves nothing but contempt. *You have been living in Rio de Janeiro for eight years now. How do you feel living in Brazil? * I love Brazil. That’s why I have been living here for so long. Of course, I was here because of the discriminatory law in the United States that prevents my partner from emigrating there even though I could emigrate here. But there is really a robust CIA presence in Rio de Janeiro; the station chief of Brazil and Rio is notoriously aggressive in his methods. So I assume that I have been spied on and monitored. We had an incident, when my partner’s laptop disappeared from the house. But I feel as safe here as I would anywhere else. I don’t feel particularly unsafe here. You are only so safe when you are carrying in your bag 10,000 top-secret documents of the most secretive agency of the most powerful government in the world. You don’t have complete safety, but I don’t feel unsafe either. *** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 24 02:55:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:25:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] 'Not surprising India has become an important surveillance target' In-Reply-To: <5241279D.6080703@itforchange.net> References: <5241279D.6080703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you >From the very same newspaper - http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-surveillance-project-may-be-as-lethal-as-prism/article834619.ece --srs (iPad) > On 24-Sep-2013, at 11:18, parminder wrote: > > > > > from the Hindu > > > 'Not surprising India has become an important surveillance target' > > Shobhan Saxena > > AP GLENN GREENWALD: ‘The U.S.’s primary tactic is to try to scare citizens of the world by constantly manipulating the threat posed in order to induce submission … This has been particularly exposed with these NSA stories.’ > For some time now, people around the world have suspected their emails are being read and phone conversations tapped into by government agencies. But there never was any proof. Everybody’s worst fears came true in June when Edward Snowden, a system administrator with the U.S. National Security Agency, disclosed information about mass electronic surveillance programmes being run by the agency since 2007. Glenn Greenwald broke that story for The Guardian. > > Since then the American journalist, who lives in Rio de Janeiro, has done a series of hard-hitting stories that have exposed the reach of the NSA’s secret surveillance operations. His expose about the NSA snooping on Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff’s phones and email has already led to the cancellation of her state dinner at the White House. > > Now collaborating with The Hindu on a series of stories about the NSA’s spying activities in India, Mr. Greenwald spoke to Shobhan Saxena in the course of their meetings in hotel lobbies and at his house, which he shares with his partner David Miranda, 10 dogs and one cat, in the middle of Tijuca forest in Rio. Excerpts from the interview: > > What do you think has been the most important impact of your stories? > > It’s that not only Americans, but people around the world, now understand the true aim of the U.S. surveillance system: collect, store, and analyse all forms of electronic communication between human beings. In other words, their goal is, by definition, to eliminate privacy globally. And this realisation has produced profound and intense debates on every continent about the value of individual privacy and internet freedom, the dangers posed by secret U.S. surveillance, and more broadly, the role the U.S. plays in the world. > > Your reports have revealed the United States to be a massive surveillance state. This image is very different from the US own projection of itself as beacon of individual liberty, freedom and protector of individual privacy. How have these revelations affected the image of U.S. in the world? > > In the beginning, people assumed that the primary focus (of our reports) was going to be on what the National Security Agency is doing and what the U.S. surveillance policy is, and what was going to change was how Americans thought about spying and how people in the world thought about privacy. But what actually changed the most from these stories was how people think about America generally — exactly the way you just asked. > > These stories revealed a surveillance programme that functioned without the knowledge of not just people around the world but also of Americans who supposedly hold their government democratically accountable; the U.S., it is clear, does not observe any legal limits or ethical constraints in its pursuit of power. It’s completely contrary to the image it presents to the world. > > Is this process irreversible because both the Republicans and Democrats in the US now talk the same language on matters of national security? The way the Obama administration has reacted to the reports, it seems there is no soul searching happening in Washington. > > I don’t think anything is irreversible when it comes to political trends. We saw in the last three to four years how the most entrenched tyrannies in the Arab world were weakened, subverted and even uprooted. There are all kinds of examples in history of radical changes that people never anticipated. So, I don’t think it’s irreversible. I do think it’s difficult to change it because of this bipartisan embrace by both the parties of not just the national security state in general but also America’s role in the world as an empire. But one of the things you are already seeing in the five-six weeks since we have been reporting the story is a scrambling of partisan divisions. So, half of the most vocal support for the reports has come from Republicans, conservatives and libertarians; the other half has come from liberals and people on the left. > > It really has scrambled the normal ideological categories in ways that’s unprecedented; you also see in public opinion polls a huge increase in the number of people who are genuinely concerned about the excesses of the surveillance state, civil liberty abuses and privacy infringements. All this suggests that change is probably inevitable when it comes to these sorts of questions as a result of these disclosures. > > Your partner David Miranda was detained in London under an anti-terror law. Do you think they were really after the documents he was carrying or were they trying to intimidate you? > > There is no question their primary goal was intimidation. If their goal was to take what he was carrying, they could have done that by detaining him for 9 minutes. Instead, they detained him for 9 hours, the maximum allowed by law. And they not only detained him, but did so under an “anti-terrorism” law. Especially for non-U.S.-and-U.K. citizens, it’s an incredibly terrorising thing to hear that you’re being detained by the U.K. pursuant to a “terrorism” investigation given that country’s awful human rights record over the last decade. > > A U.S. official told Reuters that the purpose of David’s detention was to “send a message” to those of us reporting on these stories that we should stop. It was a thuggish attack on press freedoms. > > There have been attempts in the U.S. to criminalise journalism, as happened in the case of Fox News and AP? Doesn’t this bother you? > > They are already succeeding in creating a climate of fear against whistleblowers and sources. That’s why some federal lawyers have told me that, at least for now, I shouldn’t go back to the U.S. and I should not try to enter the country. It’s pretty extraordinary for American lawyers to tell an American journalist that you should not try to re-enter your own country for fear that they may try and arrest you. > > So you have not been to the U.S. since you published the stories? > > No, I have not. I have been to Hong Kong and back to Brazil through Dubai. I am not saying that I will get arrested, but just the fact that it’s even on the table for discussion and that a lot of people feel publicly free to advocate this without losing their position or their credibility, makes it a real possibility. When you talk about being charged by the US government under espionage statutes, it’s not a risk that you can casually dismiss. > > Why do you think the NSA has targeted the diplomatic missions and other interests of India, which has friendly ties with the U.S.? > > India is an increasingly important country in virtually every realm: economic, political, diplomatic and military. The U.S. goal is to subject virtually everyone to mass surveillance, but it is not surprising that India has become an important surveillance target. Ultimately, it’s a question of power: the more the US knows about what other countries are doing — not just their governments but their companies and populations — the more power the U.S. has vis-à-vis that country. > > One of the most shocking revelations in your reports was the involvement of several western democracies like the U.K. and Germany in these secret surveillance programmes. It seems few countries are willing to stand up to the U.S. > > I think the world can be very broadly divided, when it comes to the relationship of states with the United States, in three categories. One is states that are incredibly subservient to the U.S. and always capitulate to its dictates. The other part is the states that are generally hostile to the U.S., and then there is a majority of countries in the middle that are independent. They ally with the U.S. if their interests suggest they should and they oppose the U.S. if they have to. > > Most European states are very squarely in the first camp, namely the governments that always capitulate meekly and subserviently to the dictates of the United States. So you saw lots of feigned anger and artificial indignation when these revelations first emerged because the citizens of European states were targeted and they actually care about privacy. So the governments had to pretend to be angry but what you saw was their true colours when U.S. basically told them to deny airspace rights to the plane of (Bolivian President) Evo Morales. They complied in really extreme ways by denying the airspace to the president of a sovereign country. The reason they did that is they are complicit in it: virtually all these western European governments; whereas in Latin America and to some an extent in Asia, certainly in the Middle East in some countries, there is a lot more independence. So the anger that is being expressed is to some degree artificial but it’s also more genuine. > > There seems to be hardly any anger against technology firms like Facebook, Skype, Google, which almost collaborated with the U.S. government in collecting information about people around the world. Now these firms claim they didn’t have any choice. Did they have the option of saying ‘no’ to the NSA? > > There are legal frameworks that require them to collaborate with the US government in its surveillance programme but they have gone beyond what’s legally required, just like the telecom companies did during the Bush years. The reason is that they benefit massively in all sorts of ways from positive relationships with the government. Just the benefits they get from collaborating with the U.S. government in terms of this massive spying programme vastly outweigh what they think are the costs to their customer relation or to their goodwill in the world from doing that. One of the reasons they made that calculation was because they have been able to do all this in secret; nobody knew they were cooperating to this extent and one of the benefits of disclosing what they have been doing is that it alters the calculus for them because if people start perceiving that these companies are so complicit with the US government and their communications are not safe, they will start looking for alternatives. > > The problem right now is that Facebook, Google and Skype are such mammoth entities that it’s almost impossible to avoid using them. If you are a 22-year-old, you may be bothered by the fact that Facebook is invading your privacy, but when all your friends, all your peers, all your employers are on Facebook and demand you to be, it’s very difficult to take a principled stand and say ‘I am not going to continue to use Facebook or Skype’. > > Your reports have in a way also exposed the so-called mainstream media like the New York Times and CNN, which ran more stories about Edward Snowden’s personal life than the U.S. surveillance programme. Even you came under attack in some newspaper columns. Do you think the space for good journalism and investigative reporting is shrinking in global media? > > Yes and no. I think it was completely predictable what they were going to do. Even before we disclosed the identity of Snowden I ran a column with the intent of predicting that they would try to distract attention from the revelations because serving the government’s interest is what their function is. They are going to demonise him along with anybody, including journalists, who work with him for transparency. That’s what they do in every single case. They did that to Daniel Ellsberg 30 years ago, 40 years ago. They did that to Wikileaks, Bradley Manning. We knew they are going to do that to Snowdon and eventually to me. > > But it hasn’t really mattered. The space for investigative reporting in some sense has diminished because of how corporatized mass media has become, but the way the internet has given rise to all sorts of alternative models the space for investigative journalism is larger than it ever was. I am a creature of the internet. I started my own blog seven years ago and even now when I work for the Guardian, I did so by demanding total editorial independence. I have my own voice that I am not worried about. My career doesn’t depend upon currying favour with people in power. I was able to develop this alternative model because of the power of the internet and finding my own audience and not having to rely on these big institutions. There are lots of other people who are doing that in all different realms, in all different cultures, in all different places on the planet and it has definitely transformed journalism. There is a lot of soul-searching going on inside the New York Times and other media outlets on why they were completely frozen out of one of the biggest — if not the biggest — media scoops in many years. And the reason is that Snowden didn’t trust them to report the story aggressively. He didn’t trust them to resist the demands of the US government, just like Bradley Manning didn’t trust the New York Times or Washington Post and went to Wikileaks. So you are going to see more of that as more stories like this end with places or people like me or with Wikileaks, rather than in the New York Times and Washington Post. Their model of journalism is increasingly going to become discredited. It’s happening already. > > You are working on a book on this whole affair. Is the book also about Edward Snowden? > > Only a part of the book is going to be about my time, my story about how I ended up involved in this story and how I ended up with developing a relationship with Snowden as my source, how I got the documents, how I reported them, my experiences in Hong Kong and afterwards. But the bulk of the book is going to be about what the US has done in constructing this surveillance state and what the implications and dangers of it are. There are going to be new revelations as well based on the documents. > > Some people have suggested that Mr. Snowden could be a false flag. Naomi Wolf even wrote an article arguing that this all could be a set-up. Did you have any doubt whatsoever about Snowden or authenticity of the documents before you sat down to write your stories? > > No, to buy this theory would be so stupid that I didn’t spend a second of my time and energy on it. Part of what we all do as human beings is based on intuition. You have to make judgments about who is lying to you and who is telling the truth, who is not credible, who is tricking you and who is being authentic. When I went to Hong Kong, my only goal for the first four or five days was to understand everything I possibly could about Edward Snowden and to ensure that there was nothing he was hiding and he was genuine about what he was claiming. As I had never met him before, I spent dozens and dozens of hours with him in the first week alone. Speaking face to face with him — four feet away from where he was sitting and looking into my eyes — and I had no doubt about what he said and who he was. I would rather have people who are excessively sceptical rather than excessively gullible but that particular theory deserves nothing but contempt. > > You have been living in Rio de Janeiro for eight years now. How do you feel living in Brazil? > > I love Brazil. That’s why I have been living here for so long. Of course, I was here because of the discriminatory law in the United States that prevents my partner from emigrating there even though I could emigrate here. > > But there is really a robust CIA presence in Rio de Janeiro; the station chief of Brazil and Rio is notoriously aggressive in his methods. So I assume that I have been spied on and monitored. We had an incident, when my partner’s laptop disappeared from the house. But I feel as safe here as I would anywhere else. I don’t feel particularly unsafe here. You are only so safe when you are carrying in your bag 10,000 top-secret documents of the most secretive agency of the most powerful government in the world. You don’t have complete safety, but I don’t feel unsafe either. > *** > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 24 03:01:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:31:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads In-Reply-To: <52411E34.1080904@itforchange.net> References: <52411E34.1080904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: What makes you think other states are not capable of making such laws? Or is this an argument against either - 1. Portals basing themselves in California 2. Californian law aimed at protecting its own citizens --srs (iPad) > On 24-Sep-2013, at 10:38, parminder wrote: > > See > > http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568 > > It is about putting restrictions on some kinds of ads on Internet services, applications etc that aimed at minors. It also allows minors to remove content about themselves. > > Whatever agreement or disagreement people may have with this particular law, one important issue here is that California can make such law, but not states in other countries, not even national governments. I mean it is so so difficult for them to enforce it, that it may not be worth attempting it. At other places, big companies may simply blackmail them by threats of withdrawal as Google did with governemnt of Taipei a few years back. (which they wont do with Gov of California).... This is how policy space for non US gov entities is shrinking fast, and what it means is that political and democratic space of our world is shrinking... A key global IG issue if there ever was one. > > parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 08:07:04 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:07:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: C-epas Digest, Vol 48, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This just arrived via a Caribbean list that I subscribe to. Deirdre ----- Original Message ----- From: Deborah James To: Deborah James Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:55 AM Subject: Request for your endorsement against FTA - "Information Technology Agreement" Dear Friends, Please see this note below ? requesting endorsements for an important letter by our friends at ITUC (developed together with OWINFS) against yet another proposed FTA in the WTO ? this time on "Information Technology Goods" aka "kiss your infant industry and jobs creation programs goodbye!" Please send organizational endorsement with country to Georgios Altintzis at georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org by September 23rd. We really need to make a strong showing to governments on this one soon! It has been endorsed by IndustriALL, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND), UNI Global Union, International Union of Food workers (IUF-UITA-IUL), and more (see attached) but now we need YOU! Thank you! - Deborah, Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) ------------------------------------------ Dear colleagues, Estimados compa?eros y compa?eras, (espa?ol abajo) Chers/ch?res camarades, (fran?ais ci-dessous) With very little public knowledge, governments are negotiating to expand the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) of the WTO, which commits countries to assess zero tariffs on myriad manufactured products. We are writing to express our deep concern because ITA-II will reduce policy space for governments to protect infant industries and jobs, and is not a solution to the global jobs crisis. In light of the stagnation of the Doha Round in the WTO, developed countries are seeking to achieve their agenda (getting new market access for their corporations) without having to make concessions to developing countries that would make the global trading system more fair. Join our sign-on letter to governments that participate in the expansion of the ITA-II, urging them to be cautious and prudent when negotiating on issues that concern industrial development, policy space, technology transfer, technical standards, market access and security. The sign-on was developed with Our World Is Not For Sale Network (OWINFS), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Global Union ?IndustriALL? and the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND). Please send your organisational endorsement, with country (or countries) of your group, to Georgios Altintzis at georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org. The deadline for signing on the letter is September 23, so that it can be delivered before the next round of negotiations. The attached letters are in English, Arabic, Spanish, and French versions; we urge you to share this call with your networks, especially as we are on a tight deadline. All the best, Saludos solidarios, Meilleures salutations Yorgos Altintzis, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) ------------------- Sin apenas informar a la opini?n p?blica, los gobiernos est?n negociando la ampliaci?n del Acuerdo sobre Tecnolog?a de la Informaci?n (ATI) de la OMC, que comprometer?a a los pa?ses a aplicar derechos arancelarios nulos a una gran cantidad de productos manufacturados. Nos expresamos nuestra seria preocupaci?n, en particular, porque ATI-II reducir? el espacio pol?tico de que disponen los gobiernos para proteger sus industrias nacientes y empleos, y no ofrece una soluci?n a la crisis mundial del empleo. Ante el estancamiento de la Ronda de Doha en la OMC, los pa?ses desarrollados est?n buscando la manera de hacer avanzar sus intereses (tener acceso a nuevos mercados para sus empresas), sin tener que hacer concesiones a los pa?ses en desarrollo, concesiones que har?an que el sistema mundial del comercio fuera m?s justo. A?adan su firma a una carta que dirigiremos a los gobiernos que participan en la ampliaci?n del ATI-II, inst?ndolos a actuar con la m?xima prudencia al negociar sobre cuestiones relativas al desarrollo industrial, espacio pol?tico, transferencia de tecnolog?a, normas t?cnicas, acceso a los mercados y seguridad. Esta carta fue elaborada conjuntamente por la Red ?Nuestro Mundo No Est? en Venta?, la Confederaci?n Sindical Internacional (CSI), el Sindicato Mundial ?IndustriALL? y la Red de ONG ?rabes para el Desarrollo (ANND). Les rogamos confirmen el apoyo de su organizaci?n, mencionando el pa?s (o pa?ses) de su grupo a Georgios Altintzis (georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org). El plazo para enviar la carta firmada es el 23 de septiembre, a fin de que pueda entregarse antes de la pr?xima ronda de negociaciones. Les enviamos en anexo las cartas en ingles, ?rabe, espa?ol y franc?s. Asimismo les rogamos que difundan este llamado entre todas sus redes r?pidamente, ya que el tiempo apremia. ------------------ N?informant pas le publique, les gouvernements n?gocient l??largissement de l?Accord sur les technologies de l?information (ATI) de l?OMC, qui engagerait les pays ? ramener ? z?ro les droits de douane pour la fabrication d?une multitude de produits. Nous vous faisons part de notre vive inqui?tude, notamment parce que l?Accord r?duira l?espace politique dont disposent les gouvernements pour prot?ger leurs industries naissantes et les emplois et qu?il n?offre pas de solution ? la crise de l?emploi mondiale. Compte tenu de la stagnation du cycle de Doha ? l?OMC, les pays d?velopp?s cherchent ? r?aliser leur programme (obtenir un acc?s ? des nouveaux march?s pour leurs entreprises) sans devoir faire de concessions aux pays en d?veloppement, qui rendraient le syst?me mondial du commerce plus ?quitable. Nous vous invitons ? signer la lettre que nous adresserons aux gouvernements participant ? l??largissement de l?ATI, les exhortant ? agir avec prudence et pr?caution dans le cadre de la n?gociation des questions concernant le d?veloppement industriel, l?espace politique, le transfert de technologie, les normes techniques, l?acc?s aux march?s et la s?curit?. Cette lettre a ?t? ?labor?e conjointement avec le r?seau ? Notre monde n?est pas ? vendre ? (OWINFS), la Conf?d?ration syndicale internationale (CSI), la f?d?ration syndicale internationale IndustriALL et le R?seau d?ONG arabes pour le d?veloppement (ANND). Nous vous prions de bien vouloir confirmer le soutien de votre organisation, en indiquant le pays (ou les pays) de votre groupe ? Georgios Altintzis (georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org). Le d?lai pour envoyer la lettre sign?e est le 23 septembre, afin qu?elle puisse ?tre remise avant le prochain cycle de n?gociations. Nous vous annexons la lettre en anglais, en arabe, en espagnol et en fran?ais. Nous vous exhortons ?galement ? diffuser rapidement cet appel ? vos r?seaux, compte tenu du tr?s court d?lai. Yorgos Altintz?s Economic & Social Policy ITUC International Trade Union Confederation ??? ??????? ????????????? ?????????? -- Deborah James Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) network Director of International Programs Center for Economic and Policy Research 1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20009 +1.202.293.5380 x111 djames at cepr.net www.cepr.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITA - sign on - final EN Sept 19.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 38303 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITA - sign on - final ES SEpt 19.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41200 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment-0001.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITA - sign on - final FR Sept 19.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 39074 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment-0002.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITA - sign on - final AR Sept 19.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 32768 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment-0003.bin ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ C-epas mailing list C-epas at pambazuka.org http://lists.pambazuka.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c-epas End of C-epas Digest, Vol 48, Issue 2 ************************************* -- “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 nashton at consensus.pro Tue Sep 24 08:40:25 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:40:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: C-epas Digest, Vol 48, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24CFFBBC-0EA6-4E6D-9353-D92B39389BC3@consensus.pro> It is probably a bit out-of-date. The ITA-II talks are on hold now. On 24 Sep 2013, at 14:07, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > This just arrived via a Caribbean list that I subscribe to. > Deirdre > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Deborah James > To: Deborah James > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:55 AM > Subject: Request for your endorsement against FTA - "Information Technology Agreement" > > > Dear Friends, > Please see this note below ? requesting endorsements for an important letter by our friends at ITUC (developed together with OWINFS) against yet another proposed FTA in the WTO ? this time on "Information Technology Goods" aka "kiss your infant industry and jobs creation programs goodbye!" Please send organizational endorsement with country to Georgios Altintzis at georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org by September 23rd. We really need to make a strong showing to governments on this one soon! It has been endorsed by IndustriALL, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND), UNI Global Union, International Union of Food workers (IUF-UITA-IUL), and more (see attached) but now we need YOU! > > > Thank you! > > > - Deborah, Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) > ------------------------------------------ > > Dear colleagues, > > Estimados compa?eros y compa?eras, (espa?ol abajo) > > Chers/ch?res camarades, (fran?ais ci-dessous) > > > With very little public knowledge, governments are negotiating to expand the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) of the WTO, which commits countries to assess zero tariffs on myriad manufactured products. We are writing to express our deep concern because ITA-II will reduce policy space for governments to protect infant industries and jobs, and is not a solution to the global jobs crisis. In light of the stagnation of the Doha Round in the WTO, developed countries are seeking to achieve their agenda (getting new market access for their corporations) without having to make concessions to developing countries that would make the global trading system more fair. > > > Join our sign-on letter to governments that participate in the expansion of the ITA-II, urging them to be cautious and prudent when negotiating on issues that concern industrial development, policy space, technology transfer, technical standards, market access and security. > > > The sign-on was developed with Our World Is Not For Sale Network (OWINFS), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Global Union ?IndustriALL? and the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND). > > > Please send your organisational endorsement, with country (or countries) of your group, to Georgios Altintzis at georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org. The deadline for signing on the letter is September 23, so that it can be delivered before the next round of negotiations. The attached letters are in English, Arabic, Spanish, and French versions; we urge you to share this call with your networks, especially as we are on a tight deadline. > > > All the best, > > Saludos solidarios, > > Meilleures salutations > > Yorgos Altintzis, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) > > > ------------------- > > > Sin apenas informar a la opini?n p?blica, los gobiernos est?n negociando la ampliaci?n del Acuerdo sobre Tecnolog?a de la Informaci?n (ATI) de la OMC, que comprometer?a a los pa?ses a aplicar derechos arancelarios nulos a una gran cantidad de productos manufacturados. Nos expresamos nuestra seria preocupaci?n, en particular, porque ATI-II reducir? el espacio pol?tico de que disponen los gobiernos para proteger sus industrias nacientes y empleos, y no ofrece una soluci?n a la crisis mundial del empleo. Ante el estancamiento de la Ronda de Doha en la OMC, los pa?ses desarrollados est?n buscando la manera de hacer avanzar sus intereses (tener acceso a nuevos mercados para sus empresas), sin tener que hacer concesiones a los pa?ses en desarrollo, concesiones que har?an que el sistema mundial del comercio fuera m?s justo. > > > A?adan su firma a una carta que dirigiremos a los gobiernos que participan en la ampliaci?n del ATI-II, inst?ndolos a actuar con la m?xima prudencia al negociar sobre cuestiones relativas al desarrollo industrial, espacio pol?tico, transferencia de tecnolog?a, normas t?cnicas, acceso a los mercados y seguridad. > > > Esta carta fue elaborada conjuntamente por la Red ?Nuestro Mundo No Est? en Venta?, la Confederaci?n Sindical Internacional (CSI), el Sindicato Mundial ?IndustriALL? y la Red de ONG ?rabes para el Desarrollo (ANND). > > > Les rogamos confirmen el apoyo de su organizaci?n, mencionando el pa?s (o pa?ses) de su grupo a Georgios Altintzis (georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org). El plazo para enviar la carta firmada es el 23 de septiembre, a fin de que pueda entregarse antes de la pr?xima ronda de negociaciones. Les enviamos en anexo las cartas en ingles, ?rabe, espa?ol y franc?s. Asimismo les rogamos que difundan este llamado entre todas sus redes r?pidamente, ya que el tiempo apremia. > > > ------------------ > > > N?informant pas le publique, les gouvernements n?gocient l??largissement de l?Accord sur les technologies de l?information (ATI) de l?OMC, qui engagerait les pays ? ramener ? z?ro les droits de douane pour la fabrication d?une multitude de produits. Nous vous faisons part de notre vive inqui?tude, notamment parce que l?Accord r?duira l?espace politique dont disposent les gouvernements pour prot?ger leurs industries naissantes et les emplois et qu?il n?offre pas de solution ? la crise de l?emploi mondiale. Compte tenu de la stagnation du cycle de Doha ? l?OMC, les pays d?velopp?s cherchent ? r?aliser leur programme (obtenir un acc?s ? des nouveaux march?s pour leurs entreprises) sans devoir faire de concessions aux pays en d?veloppement, qui rendraient le syst?me mondial du commerce plus ?quitable. > > > Nous vous invitons ? signer la lettre que nous adresserons aux gouvernements participant ? l??largissement de l?ATI, les exhortant ? agir avec prudence et pr?caution dans le cadre de la n?gociation des questions concernant le d?veloppement industriel, l?espace politique, le transfert de technologie, les normes techniques, l?acc?s aux march?s et la s?curit?. > > > Cette lettre a ?t? ?labor?e conjointement avec le r?seau ? Notre monde n?est pas ? vendre ? (OWINFS), la Conf?d?ration syndicale internationale (CSI), la f?d?ration syndicale internationale IndustriALL et le R?seau d?ONG arabes pour le d?veloppement (ANND). > > > Nous vous prions de bien vouloir confirmer le soutien de votre organisation, en indiquant le pays (ou les pays) de votre groupe ? Georgios Altintzis (georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org). Le d?lai pour envoyer la lettre sign?e est le 23 septembre, afin qu?elle puisse ?tre remise avant le prochain cycle de n?gociations. Nous vous annexons la lettre en anglais, en arabe, en espagnol et en fran?ais. Nous vous exhortons ?galement ? diffuser rapidement cet appel ? vos r?seaux, compte tenu du tr?s court d?lai. > > > > > > > Yorgos Altintz?s > > Economic & Social Policy > > ITUC International Trade Union Confederation > > ??? ??????? ????????????? ?????????? > > > > > > > -- > > > Deborah James > Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) network > > > Director of International Programs > Center for Economic and Policy Research > 1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20009 > +1.202.293.5380 x111 > djames at cepr.net > www.cepr.net > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment.htm > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: ITA - sign on - final EN Sept 19.docx > Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document > Size: 38303 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment.bin > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: ITA - sign on - final ES SEpt 19.docx > Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document > Size: 41200 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment-0001.bin > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: ITA - sign on - final FR Sept 19.docx > Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document > Size: 39074 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment-0002.bin > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: ITA - sign on - final AR Sept 19.docx > Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document > Size: 32768 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment-0003.bin > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > C-epas mailing list > C-epas at pambazuka.org > http://lists.pambazuka.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c-epas > > > End of C-epas Digest, Vol 48, Issue 2 > ************************************* > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 10:34:31 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:34:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Message-ID: Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. C -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BR_en.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 384434 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 10:41:16 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:41:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BLACNIC/Anuncios=5D_LACNIC_-?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Declaraci=F3n_ante_incidentes_de_espionage_/_LACNIC_Posit?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ion_on_massive_espionage_/_Espionangem_a_posi=E7ao_de_LACN?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?IC?= In-Reply-To: <52419B42.9040000@lacnic.net> References: <52419B42.9040000@lacnic.net> Message-ID: I think this is of interest to the list Deirdre ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ernesto Majo Date: 2013/9/24 Subject: [LACNIC/Anuncios] LACNIC - Declaración ante incidentes de espionage / LACNIC Position on massive espionage / Espionangem a posiçao de LACNIC To: anuncios at lacnic.net [English below] [Português abaixo] ----------- *Posición de LACNIC acerca de denuncias de espionaje atribuidas a la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA) de los Estados Unidos.* http://www.lacnic.net/web/anuncios/2013-lacnic-acerca-espionaje El Registro de Direcciones de Internet para América Latina y el Caribe, LACNIC, expresa su profunda preocupación por las descripciones circulantes acerca de prácticas de vigilancia electrónica efectuadas por la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA) de los Estados Unidos. Si bien en los últimos meses, numerosas han sido las denuncias de espionaje por parte de agencias del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, todas susceptibles de inspirar preocupación, LACNIC desea advertir particularmente acerca de la posibilidad de que dichas agencias cuenten con la habilidad y disposición de vulnerar los estándares actuales de cifrado y protección de información en Internet que, en caso de confirmarse su existencia, constituyen una grave amenaza a la esencia tecnológica de Internet. Este tipo de iniciativas gubernamentales, sumadas a las recientes revelaciones sobre prácticas de vigilancia, aún produciéndose fuera de la región, supondrían un impacto sobre la privacidad y seguridad con la entidad suficiente como para poner en vilo la interoperabilidad global de Internet así como la capacidad que tiene la misma de continuar siendo el motor de desarrollo que los países de América Latina y el Caribe necesitan. LACNIC identifica en su misión y visión que una Internet abierta, estable y segura es un factor clave para el desarrollo social, económico y cultural de la región. La confianza que los diferentes grupos de usuarios pueden tener en la red está directamente asociada a la confianza en los estándares de seguridad de la misma y si existe un verosímil manto de sospecha sobre los mismos, naturalmente la comunidad será más reticente en aprovechar todo el potencial que la red le ofrece. LACNIC reafirma su convicción acerca que los procesos abiertos de desarrollo de estándares y el respeto a los mismos son el medio ideal para restablecer esta confianza, y por ello llama a toda la comunidad de Internet de la región a sumarse a estos procesos y ayudar a que los mismos continúen con el desafío de fortalecer una Internet abierta, segura y estable. -------- *LACNIC’s position on allegations of espionage attributed to the National Security Agency (NSA ) of the United States.* http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2013-lacnic-acerca-espionaje The Latin American and Caribbean Internet Address Registry, LACNIC, expresses its deep concern regarding the current descriptions about electronic surveillance practices conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States. While during the past months there have been numerous allegations of espionage done by agencies of the U.S. Government , all likely to inspire concern, LACNIC wants to warn particularly about the possibility about these agencies having the ability and willingness of violate current standards of encryption and data protection on the Internet that, if confirmed its existence, it would constitute a serious threat to the core of the Internet technology . This type of government initiatives, coupled with the recent revelations about surveillance practices, even if they occur outside LACNIC’s region, would lead to a negative impact on privacy and security with the capacity of jeopardizing global interoperability of the Internet and the ability of the network to remain being the engine for the development that the Latin American and Caribbean countries need. LACNIC identified in its own mission and vision that an open, stable and secure Internet is a key factor for social, economic and cultural development of the region. The trust that the different groups of users have on the Internet is directly related to the confidence in the safety standards of the network. So, the eventual existence of a suspicion mantle over thos standards, would end in reluctancy of the community to exploit the full potential that Internet offers . LACNIC reaffirms its belief that open processes of standards development and respect to them are the ideal way to restore this confidence, and therefore calls the entire Internet community in the region to join these processes and to contribute for a open, safe and stable Internet. ---------- * * *A posição de LACNIC em relação às denúncias de espionagem atribuídas à Agência de Segurança Nacional (NSA) dos Estados Unidos* http://www.lacnic.net/pt/web/anuncios/2013-lacnic-acerca-espionaje O Registro de Endereçamento da Internet para América Latina e Caribe, LACNIC, expressa sua profunda preocupação com as descrições atuais sobre as práticas de vigilância eletrônica, efetuadas pela Agência de Segurança Nacional (NSA) dos Estados Unidos. Embora nos últimos meses hajam sido inúmeras as denúncias de espionagem por parte das agências do Governo dos Estados Unidos, todas suscetíveis a inspirar preocupação, LACNIC deseja advertir particularmente acerca da possibilidade de que ditas agências contam com a habilidade e disposição de violar os padrões atuais de criptografia e proteção de informação na Internet que, se confirmada sua existência, constitui uma séria ameaça para a essência tecnológica da Internet. Esse tipo de iniciativa governamental em conjunto com as recentes revelações sobre práticas de vigilância, ainda que ocorrendo fora da região, produzem um impacto sobre a privacidade e segurança com a entidade suficiente como para alertar a interoperatividade global da Internet assim como a capacidade que tem a mesma de continuar sendo o motor do desenvolvimento que os países da América Latina e Caribe necessitam. LACNIC identifica em sua missão e visão que uma Internet aberta, estável e segura é a chave para o desenvolvimento social, econômico e cultural da região. A confiança que os diferentes grupos de usuários podem ter na rede está diretamente associada com a confiança nas normas de segurança do mesmo e se existe um verossímil manto de suspeita sobre estas, obviamente a comunidade será mais reticente em aproveitar todo o potencial que a rede lhe oferece. LACNIC reafirma sua convicção em que os processos abertos de desenvolvimento de padrões e respeito a eles são a maneira ideal para restabelecer esta confiança e, portanto, convoca toda a comunidade da Internet da região para somar-se a estes processos e ajudar a que os mesmos continuem com o desafio de fortalecer uma Internet aberta, segura e estável. -------- _______________________________________________ Anuncios mailing list Anuncios at lacnic.net https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/anuncios -- “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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 11:17:16 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:17:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Three mentions to "multilateral". No mention to "multistakeholder". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 11:18:27 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:18:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: very true...and this is about governments On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > Three mentions to "multilateral". > No mention to "multistakeholder". > -- *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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 24 11:25:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:55:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: C-epas Digest, Vol 48, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <24CFFBBC-0EA6-4E6D-9353-D92B39389BC3@consensus.pro> References: <24CFFBBC-0EA6-4E6D-9353-D92B39389BC3@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <5241AEE5.9070403@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 24 September 2013 06:10 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > It is probably a bit out-of-date. The ITA-II talks are on hold now. Its a current initiative. See the sign on deadline of 23rd Sept 2013.... > > On 24 Sep 2013, at 14:07, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > >> >> This just arrived via a Caribbean list that I subscribe to. >> Deirdre >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Deborah James >> To: Deborah James >> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:55 AM >> Subject: Request for your endorsement against FTA - "Information >> Technology Agreement" >> >> >> Dear Friends, >> Please see this note below ? requesting endorsements for an important >> letter by our friends at ITUC (developed together with OWINFS) >> against yet another proposed FTA in the WTO ? this time on >> "Information Technology Goods" aka "kiss your infant industry and >> jobs creation programs goodbye!" Please send organizational >> endorsement with country to Georgios Altintzis at >> georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org >> by September 23rd. We really >> need to make a strong showing to governments on this one soon! It has >> been endorsed by IndustriALL, International Trade Union Confederation >> (ITUC), the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND), UNI Global >> Union, International Union of Food workers (IUF-UITA-IUL), and more >> (see attached) but now we need YOU! >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> - Deborah, Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) >> ------------------------------------------ >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Estimados compa?eros y compa?eras, (espa?ol abajo) >> >> Chers/ch?res camarades, (fran?ais ci-dessous) >> >> >> With very little public knowledge, governments are negotiating to >> expand the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) of the WTO, which >> commits countries to assess zero tariffs on myriad manufactured >> products. We are writing to express our deep concern because ITA-II >> will reduce policy space for governments to protect infant industries >> and jobs, and is not a solution to the global jobs crisis. In light >> of the stagnation of the Doha Round in the WTO, developed countries >> are seeking to achieve their agenda (getting new market access for >> their corporations) without having to make concessions to developing >> countries that would make the global trading system more fair. >> >> >> Join our sign-on letter to governments that participate in the >> expansion of the ITA-II, urging them to be cautious and prudent when >> negotiating on issues that concern industrial development, policy >> space, technology transfer, technical standards, market access and >> security. >> >> >> The sign-on was developed with Our World Is Not For Sale Network >> (OWINFS), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the >> Global Union ?IndustriALL? and the Arab NGO Network for Development >> (ANND). >> >> >> Please send your organisational endorsement, with country (or >> countries) of your group, to Georgios Altintzis at >> georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org >> . The deadline for signing on >> the letter is September 23, so that it can be delivered before the >> next round of negotiations. The attached letters are in English, >> Arabic, Spanish, and French versions; we urge you to share this call >> with your networks, especially as we are on a tight deadline. >> >> >> All the best, >> >> Saludos solidarios, >> >> Meilleures salutations >> >> Yorgos Altintzis, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) >> >> >> ------------------- >> >> >> Sin apenas informar a la opini?n p?blica, los gobiernos est?n >> negociando la ampliaci?n del Acuerdo sobre Tecnolog?a de la >> Informaci?n (ATI) de la OMC, que comprometer?a a los pa?ses a aplicar >> derechos arancelarios nulos a una gran cantidad de productos >> manufacturados. Nos expresamos nuestra seria preocupaci?n, en >> particular, porque ATI-II reducir? el espacio pol?tico de que >> disponen los gobiernos para proteger sus industrias nacientes y >> empleos, y no ofrece una soluci?n a la crisis mundial del empleo. >> Ante el estancamiento de la Ronda de Doha en la OMC, los pa?ses >> desarrollados est?n buscando la manera de hacer avanzar sus intereses >> (tener acceso a nuevos mercados para sus empresas), sin tener que >> hacer concesiones a los pa?ses en desarrollo, concesiones que har?an >> que el sistema mundial del comercio fuera m?s justo. >> >> >> A?adan su firma a una carta que dirigiremos a los gobiernos que >> participan en la ampliaci?n del ATI-II, inst?ndolos a actuar con la >> m?xima prudencia al negociar sobre cuestiones relativas al desarrollo >> industrial, espacio pol?tico, transferencia de tecnolog?a, normas >> t?cnicas, acceso a los mercados y seguridad. >> >> >> Esta carta fue elaborada conjuntamente por la Red ?Nuestro Mundo No >> Est? en Venta?, la Confederaci?n Sindical Internacional (CSI), el >> Sindicato Mundial ?IndustriALL? y la Red de ONG ?rabes para el >> Desarrollo (ANND). >> >> >> Les rogamos confirmen el apoyo de su organizaci?n, mencionando el >> pa?s (o pa?ses) de su grupo a Georgios Altintzis >> (georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org >> ). El plazo para enviar la >> carta firmada es el 23 de septiembre, a fin de que pueda entregarse >> antes de la pr?xima ronda de negociaciones. Les enviamos en anexo >> las cartas en ingles, ?rabe, espa?ol y franc?s. Asimismo les rogamos >> que difundan este llamado entre todas sus redes r?pidamente, ya que >> el tiempo apremia. >> >> >> ------------------ >> >> >> N?informant pas le publique, les gouvernements n?gocient >> l??largissement de l?Accord sur les technologies de l?information >> (ATI) de l?OMC, qui engagerait les pays ? ramener ? z?ro les droits >> de douane pour la fabrication d?une multitude de produits. Nous vous >> faisons part de notre vive inqui?tude, notamment parce que l?Accord >> r?duira l?espace politique dont disposent les gouvernements pour >> prot?ger leurs industries naissantes et les emplois et qu?il n?offre >> pas de solution ? la crise de l?emploi mondiale. Compte tenu de la >> stagnation du cycle de Doha ? l?OMC, les pays d?velopp?s cherchent ? >> r?aliser leur programme (obtenir un acc?s ? des nouveaux march?s pour >> leurs entreprises) sans devoir faire de concessions aux pays en >> d?veloppement, qui rendraient le syst?me mondial du commerce plus >> ?quitable. >> >> >> Nous vous invitons ? signer la lettre que nous adresserons aux >> gouvernements participant ? l??largissement de l?ATI, les exhortant ? >> agir avec prudence et pr?caution dans le cadre de la n?gociation des >> questions concernant le d?veloppement industriel, l?espace politique, >> le transfert de technologie, les normes techniques, l?acc?s aux >> march?s et la s?curit?. >> >> >> Cette lettre a ?t? ?labor?e conjointement avec le r?seau ? Notre >> monde n?est pas ? vendre ? (OWINFS), la Conf?d?ration syndicale >> internationale (CSI), la f?d?ration syndicale internationale >> IndustriALL et le R?seau d?ONG arabes pour le d?veloppement (ANND). >> >> >> Nous vous prions de bien vouloir confirmer le soutien de votre >> organisation, en indiquant le pays (ou les pays) de votre groupe ? >> Georgios Altintzis (georgios.altintzis at ituc-csi.org >> ). Le d?lai pour envoyer la >> lettre sign?e est le 23 septembre, afin qu?elle puisse ?tre remise >> avant le prochain cycle de n?gociations. Nous vous annexons la lettre >> en anglais, en arabe, en espagnol et en fran?ais. Nous vous exhortons >> ?galement ? diffuser rapidement cet appel ? vos r?seaux, compte tenu >> du tr?s court d?lai. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yorgos Altintz?s >> >> Economic & Social Policy >> >> ITUC International Trade Union Confederation >> >> ??? ??????? ????????????? ?????????? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Deborah James >> Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) network >> >> >> Director of International Programs >> Center for Economic and Policy Research >> 1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400 Washington DC 20009 >> +1.202.293.5380 x111 >> djames at cepr.net >> www.cepr.net >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment.htm >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: ITA - sign on - final EN Sept 19.docx >> Type: >> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document >> Size: 38303 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : >> http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment.bin >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: ITA - sign on - final ES SEpt 19.docx >> Type: >> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document >> Size: 41200 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : >> http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment-0001.bin >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: ITA - sign on - final FR Sept 19.docx >> Type: >> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document >> Size: 39074 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : >> http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment-0002.bin >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: ITA - sign on - final AR Sept 19.docx >> Type: >> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document >> Size: 32768 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : >> http://lists.pambazuka.org/pipermail/c-epas/attachments/20130923/707a461b/attachment-0003.bin >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> C-epas mailing list >> C-epas at pambazuka.org >> http://lists.pambazuka.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c-epas >> >> >> End of C-epas Digest, Vol 48, Issue 2 >> ************************************* >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Tue Sep 24 12:33:27 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:33:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Dear Raphael, You are right. I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want to talk "Multistakeholder". If I consider this paragraph for instance : "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector." If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" Regards   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Diego Rafael Canabarro À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Carolina Rossini Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Three mentions to "multilateral".  No mention to "multistakeholder". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Tue Sep 24 12:41:12 2013 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:41:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5241C0A8.8050708@cgi.br> Dear All, You are right Jean Paul ..., she used the Principles of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee/CGI.br. see => http://www.cgi.br/regulamentacao/pdf/resolucao-2009-003-pt-en-es.pdf regards Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary Brazilian Internet Steering Committee/CGI.br ==================================================================== On 9/24/13 1:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > Dear Raphael, > > You are right. > I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she > want to talk "Multistakeholder". > If I consider this paragraph for instance : > "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with > transparency by stimulating > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments > and the private sector." > If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose > she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" > > Regards > > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > > > ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > > > > > Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > > > > > Skype : jpnkurunziz > > > Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > Tel : +257 79 981459 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *De :* Diego Rafael Canabarro > *À :* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Carolina Rossini > *Envoyé le :* Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 > *Objet :* Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > > Three mentions to "multilateral". > No mention to "multistakeholder". > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Sep 24 12:52:39 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:52:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil could be approved as we dream it should. fraternal regards --c.a. On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > Dear Raphael, > > You are right. > I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want to talk "Multistakeholder". > If I consider this paragraph for instance : > "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector." > If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" > > Regards > > > > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > > > ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > > > > > Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > > > > > Skype : jpnkurunziz > > > Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > Tel : +257 79 981459 > > > ________________________________ > De : Diego Rafael Canabarro > À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Carolina Rossini > Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 > Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > > > > Three mentions to "multilateral". > No mention to "multistakeholder". > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 13:00:39 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:00:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Awesome. On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled > to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. > > The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even > aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the > transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil > could be approved as we dream it should. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > > Dear Raphael, > > > > You are right. > > I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she > want to talk "Multistakeholder". > > If I consider this paragraph for instance : > > "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with > transparency by stimulating > > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and > the private sector." > > If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose > she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > > TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > > > > > > ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > > Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > > > > > > > > > > Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > > > > > > > > > > Skype : jpnkurunziz > > > > > > Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > > Tel : +257 79 981459 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > De : Diego Rafael Canabarro > > À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Carolina Rossini > > Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 > > Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > > > > > > > > Three mentions to "multilateral". > > No mention to "multistakeholder". > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Tue Sep 24 13:53:35 2013 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:53:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_Discurso_de_Dilma_Rousseff_est?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?a_ma=F1ana_en_Asamblea_de_Naciones_Unidas?= References: Message-ID: FYI Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: Erick Iriarte Ahon > Fecha: 24 de septiembre de 2013 10:16:55 GMT-05:00 > Para: "Foro de Derecho Informático." , Foro en LAC de Privacidad > Cc: LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN , "ag at lactld.org General de LACTLD" > Asunto: Discurso de Dilma Rousseff esta mañana en Asamblea de Naciones Unidas > > Texto: http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/BR_en.pdf > > [Parte del Discurso sobre Privacidad y Gobernanza de Internet] > > Recent revelations concerning the activities of a global network of electronic espionage have caused indignation and repudiation in public opinion around the world. > > In brazil, the situation was even more serious, as it emerged that we were targeted by this intrusion. Personal data of citizens was intercepted indiscriminately. Corporate information - often of high economic and even strategic value - was at the center of espionage activity. Also, Brazilian diplomatic missions, among them the Permanent Mission to the United Nations and the Office of the President of the Republic itself, had their communications intercepted. > > Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of International Law and is an affront to the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country. > > The arguments that the illegal interception of information and data aims at protecting nations against terrorism cannot be sustained. > > (…) > > As many other Latin Americans, I fought against authoritarianism and censorship, and I cannot but defend, in an uncompromising fashion, the right to privacy of individuals and the sovereignty of my country. In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among Nations. > > (…) > > Brazil, Mr. President, will redouble its efforts to adopt legislation, technologies and mechanisms to protect us from the illegal interception of communications and data. > > (…) > > The problem, however, goes beyond a bilateral relationship. It affects the international community itself and demands a response from it. Information and telecommunication technologies cannot be the new battlefield between States. Time is ripe to create the conditions to prevent cyberspace from being used as a weapon of war, through espionage, sabotage, and attacks against systems and infrastructure of other countries. > > 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 area capable of ensuring principles such as: > > 1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for the human rights. > 2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector. > 3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. > 4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values. > 5. 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. > > Harnessing the ill potential of the Internet requires, therefore, responsible regulation, which ensures at the same time freedom of expression, security and respect for human rights. > > Erick > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 18:35:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:35:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: "Internet Freedom" and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance Message-ID: <044801ceb976$5218a770$f649f650$@gmail.com> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/internet-freedom-and-post-snowden-g lobal-internet-governance/ http://tinyurl.com/n3onw87 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 24 20:35:30 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 06:05:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of values near and dear to civil society. --srs (iPad) > On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled > to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. > > The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even > aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the > transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil > could be approved as we dream it should. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > >> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >> Dear Raphael, >> >> You are right. >> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want to talk "Multistakeholder". >> If I consider this paragraph for instance : >> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating >> collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector." >> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY >> >> >> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT >> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président >> >> >> >> >> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général >> >> >> >> >> Skype : jpnkurunziz >> >> >> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza >> Tel : +257 79 981459 >> >> >> ________________________________ >> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro >> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Carolina Rossini >> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 >> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN >> >> >> >> Three mentions to "multilateral". >> No mention to "multistakeholder". >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 20:58:57 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:58:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a collective creation." Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector." My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that Internet governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines Internet governance as something "with the participation of the various sectors of society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private sector." Can you see my point? Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito. On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. > Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. > C > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 Tue Sep 24 21:56:08 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 03:56:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 25 03:15:19 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 00:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Remote participation link - Africa IGF Message-ID: <1380093319.23039.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> On  http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1106653/events/2426137/images/30807337 or ccc.com.ng/Afigf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 04:55:10 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:25:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5242A4EE.1010800@itforchange.net> We really hope the Macro Civil can pass with its net neutrality provisions intact.... If it does, net neutrality (NN) advocacy may be able to get a new leash of life, this time centred in developing countries who would be the biggest losers of an non-neutral Internet. This after the NN movement was killed in the US by the grand Google-Verizon pact (which, in any case both parties have turned their back on since, and was perhaps only meant to forestall possible stronger action by FCC, which at that times seemed making some serious noises) and later by the apparent volte face by EC politicians in the EU, even when some EU countries have working NN legislations. It is great that Brazil has once again articulated net neutrality as a key global IG priority. The first time it did was in 2010, at part of the joint IBSA statement on enhanced cooperation, and again recently as part of their response to enhanced cooperation questionnaire. In fact all the five principles enunciated by Dilma's statement are excellent, and should form the core of global Internet governance. I reproduce them below. 1 - Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights. 2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector. 3 - Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. 4 - Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values. 5 - 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. Bravo, Brazil. parminder On Tuesday 24 September 2013 10:22 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled > to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. > > The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even > aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the > transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil > could be approved as we dream it should. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >> Dear Raphael, >> >> You are right. >> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want to talk "Multistakeholder". >> If I consider this paragraph for instance : >> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating >> collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector." >> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY >> >> >> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT >> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président >> >> >> >> >> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général >> >> >> >> >> Skype : jpnkurunziz >> >> >> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza >> Tel : +257 79 981459 >> >> >> ________________________________ >> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro >> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Carolina Rossini >> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 >> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN >> >> >> >> Three mentions to "multilateral". >> No mention to "multistakeholder". >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 05:09:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:39:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5242A845.20803@itforchange.net> Diego In my understanding, the term 'stimuli' refers only to the 'collective creativity' part and, accordingly, in the part on participation of different sectors, Dilma makes more or less the exact same points as represented in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee principles. I dont think that when she seeks that the governance of the Internet be such as to stimulate collective creativity, she will deny the fact that the Internet is indeed a collective creation.... In any case, it will be a pity to judge such an important statement merely through the lens of how many times she uttered the mantra of multistakehoderism or not.... Her speech is full of very genuine concern for people's rights.... that is where the real meat and merit lies. parminder On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:28 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be > exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with > the participation of the various sectors of society, thereby > preserving and encouraging its character as a collective creation." > > Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic > governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective > creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the > private sector." > > My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that > Internet governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one > defines Internet governance as something "with the participation of > the various sectors of society", and the second only mentions it > should be carried out with stimuli for "the participation of society, > governments and the private sector." > > Can you see my point? > Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito. > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini > > wrote: > > > Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. > Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. > C > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Sep 25 05:56:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 02:56:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <5242A845.20803@itforchange.net> References: <5242A845.20803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130925095623.GA28395@hserus.net> This is one of those rare occasions where I agree with Parminder. In any case, whether this is due to a translation gap or a mildly imperfect use of terminology, or something more nuanced and suggesting a "governments only, with civ soc / business in a consultative capacity if at all" formula is something that remains to be seen from the policies that Brazil implements in this space. --srs parminder [25/09/13 14:39 +0530]: >Diego > >In my understanding, the term 'stimuli' refers only to the >'collective creativity' part and, accordingly, in the part on >participation of different sectors, Dilma makes more or less the >exact same points as represented in the Brazilian Internet Steering >Committee principles. > >I dont think that when she seeks that the governance of the Internet >be such as to stimulate collective creativity, she will deny the fact >that the Internet is indeed a collective creation.... > >In any case, it will be a pity to judge such an important statement >merely through the lens of how many times she uttered the mantra of >multistakehoderism or not.... Her speech is full of very genuine >concern for people's rights.... that is where the real meat and merit >lies. parminder > >On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:28 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must >>be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, >>with the participation of the various sectors of society, thereby >>preserving and encouraging its character as a collective creation." >> >>Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic >>governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective >>creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the >>private sector." >> >>My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that >>Internet governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one >>defines Internet governance as something "with the participation of >>the various sectors of society", and the second only mentions it >>should be carried out with stimuli for "the participation of >>society, governments and the private sector." >> >>Can you see my point? >>Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito. >> >> >>On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini >>> >>wrote: >> >> >> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. >> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. >> C >> >> -- *Carolina Rossini* >> /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >>-- >>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) >>-- > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Sep 25 06:01:36 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:01:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: "Internet Freedom" and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance Message-ID: <954383403.6969.1380103296946.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n34> Thank you Michael for this enlighting and instructive document. I particularly appreciated the reminder to Baku and to the big noise ("vociferations"!) made by the so-called Internet Freedom professionnals, Some echos even happened to apprear regularly on our CS list .... Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 25/09/13 00:35 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "bestbits" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] New Blogpost: "Internet Freedom" and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/internet-freedom-and-post-snowden-g > lobal-internet-governance/ > > http://tinyurl.com/n3onw87 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Sep 25 06:31:32 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego R. Canabarro) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:31:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <20130925095623.GA28395@hserus.net> References: <5242A845.20803@itforchange.net> <20130925095623.GA28395@hserus.net> Message-ID: <46D9523D-9647-41F1-B077-4BE7BE1274E2@gmail.com> Thank you all for those clarifications. :) -- Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel Sent from mobile device > Em 25/09/2013, às 06:56, Suresh Ramasubramanian escreveu: > > This is one of those rare occasions where I agree with Parminder. > > In any case, whether this is due to a translation gap or a mildly imperfect > use of terminology, or something more nuanced and suggesting a "governments > only, with civ soc / business in a consultative capacity if at all" formula > is something that remains to be seen from the policies that Brazil > implements in this space. > > --srs > > parminder [25/09/13 14:39 +0530]: >> Diego >> >> In my understanding, the term 'stimuli' refers only to the 'collective creativity' part and, accordingly, in the part on participation of different sectors, Dilma makes more or less the exact same points as represented in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee principles. >> >> I dont think that when she seeks that the governance of the Internet be such as to stimulate collective creativity, she will deny the fact that the Internet is indeed a collective creation.... >> >> In any case, it will be a pity to judge such an important statement merely through the lens of how many times she uttered the mantra of multistakehoderism or not.... Her speech is full of very genuine concern for people's rights.... that is where the real meat and merit lies. parminder >> >>> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:28 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a collective creation." >>> >>> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector." >>> >>> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that Internet governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines Internet governance as something "with the participation of the various sectors of society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private sector." >>> >>> Can you see my point? >>> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. >>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. >>> C >>> >>> -- *Carolina Rossini* >>> /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ >>> Open Technology Institute >>> *New America Foundation* >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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) >>> -- > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 07:21:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:51:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] New Blogpost: "Internet Freedom" and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance Message-ID: If you doubt the credentials of specific people, do say so.  Words like 'so called' are so much better when you supply specifics.  Who knows, it may turn out that the people in question do have hands on development and capacity building credentials that you may not be aware of, of perhaps, have disregarded.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK Date: 09/25/2013 3:31 PM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,michaelgurstein ,bestbits Subject: re: [governance] New Blogpost: "Internet Freedom" and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance Thank you Michael   for this enlighting and instructive document. I particularly appreciated the reminder to Baku and to the big noise ("vociferations"!) made by the so-called Internet Freedom professionnals, Some echos even happened to apprear regularly on our CS list ....   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack   > Message du 25/09/13 00:35 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "bestbits" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] New Blogpost: "Internet Freedom" and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/internet-freedom-and-post-snowden-g > lobal-internet-governance/ > > http://tinyurl.com/n3onw87 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 08:11:16 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:11:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <5242A845.20803@itforchange.net> References: <5242A845.20803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, and all, you can join Diego and Marilia tomorrow as they discuss the Brazil situation with us. Participants will be able to make comments and ask questions in text chat throughout the webinar. I would like to invite you to a special webinar we (Diplo) are organising in collaboration with the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV) of Brazil. *Brazil is playing an increasingly important role in global digital policy. Recent events continue to shape Brazil’s position on many issues, including political developments in reaction to the NSA leaks, its bilateral relations with the United States, news about the deployment of a BRICS-only undersea cable, and its renewed ability to influence the global Internet governance (IG) regime. Is Brazil then leading a new revolution?* *Join us for our just-in-time webinar on Thursday 26th September at 13:00 GMT when Marília Maciel, director of the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), and Diego Canabarro, doctoral student in IG at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul and visiting researcher at the University of Massachusetts, explore whether Brazil is leading a new revolution in global digital policy.* The topic should be of interest to anyone following the global developments in IG. You can read more about the webinar here, and register here. It would be great to see you tomorrow! Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 25 September 2013 04:09, parminder wrote: > Diego > > In my understanding, the term 'stimuli' refers only to the 'collective > creativity' part and, accordingly, in the part on participation of > different sectors, Dilma makes more or less the exact same points as > represented in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee principles. > > I dont think that when she seeks that the governance of the Internet be > such as to stimulate collective creativity, she will deny the fact that the > Internet is indeed a collective creation.... > > In any case, it will be a pity to judge such an important statement merely > through the lens of how many times she uttered the mantra of > multistakehoderism or not.... Her speech is full of very genuine concern > for people's rights.... that is where the real meat and merit lies. > parminder > > On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:28 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be > exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the > participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and > encouraging its character as a collective creation." > > Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic > governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective > creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private > sector." > > My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that > Internet governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines > Internet governance as something "with the participation of the various > sectors of society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out > with stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private > sector." > > Can you see my point? > Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito. > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. >> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. >> C >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > 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) > -- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 25 08:28:27 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:28:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> Dear people, I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first thing she told us was she agreed with them. She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos and big media have enormous power. frt rgds --c.a. On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be > exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the > participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and > encouraging its character as a collective creation." > > Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic > governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective > creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private > sector." > > My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that Internet > governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines Internet > governance as something "with the participation of the various sectors of > society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with > stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private > sector." > > Can you see my point? > Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito. > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. >> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. >> C >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Sep 25 09:04:27 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:04:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> References: <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear all, I totally support Carlos Afonso's view. One step at the time. What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil. Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions from the draft bill. Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major achievement. It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new. It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency. For instance, in our previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope. So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really impressed. all the best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be > far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let > us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room > to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first > thing she told us was she agreed with them. > > She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result > of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the > one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although > recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might > suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and > so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big > challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos > and big media have enormous power. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be > > exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the > > participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and > > encouraging its character as a collective creation." > > > > Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic > > governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective > > creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private > > sector." > > > > My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that Internet > > governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines > Internet > > governance as something "with the participation of the various sectors of > > society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with > > stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private > > sector." > > > > Can you see my point? > > Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < > > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. > >> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. > >> C > >> > >> -- > >> *Carolina Rossini* > >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > >> Open Technology Institute > >> *New America Foundation* > >> // > >> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >> + 1 6176979389 > >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >> skype: carolrossini > >> @carolinarossini > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 09:41:26 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:41:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the need to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in what our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say I fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos! On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > I totally support Carlos Afonso's view. > > One step at the time. > > What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br > principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for > our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil. > Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions > from the draft bill. > > Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of > communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet > public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word > "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major > achievement. > > It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new. It > has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions at > ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency. For instance, in our previous > opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our Ministry of > Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and positive. > And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct explain all > the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we have > opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope. > > So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the > President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the > UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council > of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to > incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really > impressed. > > all the best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be >> far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let >> us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room >> to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first >> thing she told us was she agreed with them. >> >> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result >> of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the >> one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although >> recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might >> suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and >> so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big >> challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos >> and big media have enormous power. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> > the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be >> > exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the >> > participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and >> > encouraging its character as a collective creation." >> > >> > Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic >> > governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective >> > creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private >> > sector." >> > >> > My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that >> Internet >> > governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines >> Internet >> > governance as something "with the participation of the various sectors >> of >> > society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with >> > stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private >> > sector." >> > >> > Can you see my point? >> > Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >> > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. >> >> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. >> >> C >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> >> Open Technology Institute >> >> *New America Foundation* >> >> // >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 10:20:34 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:50:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as also suggested on another list) parminder On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of values near and dear to civil society. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled >> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. >> >> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even >> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the >> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil >> could be approved as we dream it should. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >>> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >>> Dear Raphael, >>> >>> You are right. >>> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want to talk "Multistakeholder". >>> If I consider this paragraph for instance : >>> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating >>> collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector." >>> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >>> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY >>> >>> >>> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT >>> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Skype : jpnkurunziz >>> >>> >>> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza >>> Tel : +257 79 981459 >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Carolina Rossini >>> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 >>> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN >>> >>> >>> >>> Three mentions to "multilateral". >>> No mention to "multistakeholder". >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Sep 25 10:25:56 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:25:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:20 AM, parminder wrote: > > If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting Dilma's > very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as also suggested on > another list) > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of values near and dear to civil society. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled > to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. > > The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even > aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the > transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil > could be approved as we dream it should. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > Dear Raphael, > > You are right. > I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want to talk "Multistakeholder". > If I consider this paragraph for instance : > "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector." > If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" > > Regards > > > > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > > > ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > > > > > Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > > > > > Skype : jpnkurunziz > > > Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > Tel : +257 79 981459 > > > ________________________________ > De : Diego Rafael Canabarro > À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Carolina Rossini > Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 > Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > > > > Three mentions to "multilateral". > No mention to "multistakeholder". > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Sep 25 10:37:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:07:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <141558d8500.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we are I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement --srs (htc one x) On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder wrote: > > If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting Dilma's > very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as also suggested on > another list) > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of values near and > dear to civil society. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > >> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> > >> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled > >> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. > >> > >> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even > >> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the > >> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil > >> could be approved as we dream it should. > >> > >> fraternal regards > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >>> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > >>> Dear Raphael, > >>> > >>> You are right. > >>> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she > want to talk "Multistakeholder". > >>> If I consider this paragraph for instance : > >>> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with > transparency by stimulating > >>> collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and > the private sector." > >>> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose > she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > >>> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > >>> > >>> > >>> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > >>> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Skype : jpnkurunziz > >>> > >>> > >>> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > >>> Tel : +257 79 981459 > >>> > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro > >>> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Carolina Rossini > >>> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 > >>> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Three mentions to "multilateral". > >>> No mention to "multistakeholder". > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Sep 25 10:52:44 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:52:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <141558d8500.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> <141558d8500.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel could (should) be part of the task-force. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other brazilian > colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we are > > I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder ** wrote: > > > If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting Dilma's > very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as also suggested on > another list) > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of > values near and dear to civil society. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled > to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. > > The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even > aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the > transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil > could be approved as we dream it should. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > Dear Raphael, > > You are right. > I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want > to talk "Multistakeholder". > If I consider this paragraph for instance : > "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the > private sector." > If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she > wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" > > Regards > > > > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > > > ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > > > > > Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > > > > > Skype : jpnkurunziz > > > Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > Tel : +257 79 981459 > > > ________________________________ > De : Diego Rafael Canabarro > À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Carolina Rossini > > Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 > Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > > > > Three mentions to "multilateral". > No mention to "multistakeholder". > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Sep 25 12:10:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:40:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Message-ID: That is something only they can answer but from me, +1 As long as a statement we can agree on is made available, the more the merrier I guess.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Diego Rafael Canabarro Date: 09/25/2013 8:22 PM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel could (should) be part of the task-force. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we are I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement --srs (htc one x) On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder wrote: If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as also suggested on another list) parminder On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of values near and dear to civil society. --srs (iPad) On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil could be approved as we dream it should. fraternal regards --c.a. On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: Dear Raphael, You are right. I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want to talk "Multistakeholder". If I consider this paragraph for instance : "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector." If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" Regards NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Diego Rafael Canabarro À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Carolina Rossini Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Three mentions to "multilateral". No mention to "multistakeholder". ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 12:09:38 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:09:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Last chance to apply: Master in Diplomacy with a specialisation in Internet Governance Message-ID: In case you know anyone who might be interested. Apologies for cross-posting. Thanks! Ginger Dear friends, DiploFoundation's call for applications for the 2014 Master in Diplomacy with a specialisation in Internet governance closes in a few days. Details of the programme are available below, and at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD *If you are interested in applying, or have any questions about the programme, please e-mail us as soon as possible at admissions at diplomacy.edu. Late applications may be considered; e-mail us to request a deadline extension.* We would appreciate if you could forward this message to others whom you think may benefit from this programme. Thank you. Best, Stephanie Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with an Internet Governance Specialisation ------------------------------ *Accelerate your career with this online diplomacy programme, offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta.* ------------------------------ This unique programme gives current and future Internet policymakers a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques, necessary to engage effectively in international global policy processes. ’The IG route in the MA Contemporary Diplomacy Programme has enabled me to situate the focus of my work on Internet Governance in Africa in a space that is directly relevant to the mandate of the NEPAD Agency. I have found immense value in being able to bring together the two worlds of Internet Governance and Diplomacy.’ *Towela Nyirenda-Jere Programme Manager, e-Africa Programme, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency * How the programme works - First, you attend a 10-day residential workshop in Malta. Here you will get a clear overview of the programme, meet your classmates and some of the faculty members, and develop skills in critical areas of diplomacy including negotiation, protocol, and language. - Next, you participate in five online courses, each lasting ten weeks. You will attend three or four courses in IG-related topics and choose the remaining courses from our wide range of diplomacy topics. Online study involves reading and discussing lecture texts with course lecturers and fellow participants, completing learning activities and assignments, and joining online meetings. Once you have completed these courses, you are eligible to receive a Postgraduate Diploma in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. - If you continue to the Master's degree, the final part of the programme is writing your dissertation, focussed on an IG-related topic, under the personal guidance of a faculty member. On successful completion, you will receive a Master’s degree in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. - The IG courses you attended – as well as other courses – will be listed in a detailed transcript which you can order on completion of the programme to supplement your diploma or degree in Contemporary Diplomacy. *Faculty members* include practising and retired diplomats, academics, and specialists in IG with both theoretical expertise and practical experience in the field. *Online learning* takes place in small groups and is highly interactive, drawing on the experience and knowledge of participants as well as lecturers. Course work is flexible: within a weekly schedule, you decide when and where to study. The programme requires 5–7 hours of study per week. Interested in a traditional diplomacy programme? You can also register without the Internet governance (IG) specialisation - see the programme websitefor more details. The Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy is recognised worldwide and has European postgraduate accreditation through the Faculty of Arts at the University of Malta. Graduates of Diplo's IG courses hold key positions in national and international bodies working in Internet Governance, including the Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group. *Who should apply* Diplomats, government officials, and other individuals interested in or responsible for IG, cybersecurity and other Internet-related policy issues; business and civil society activists involved in multistakeholder IG processes; postgraduate students, journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations wishing to take an active part in Internet policy-making. *How to apply* The next programme begins on 29 January 2014. *Apply by 1 October 2013*. For further details and application instructions, please visit http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD or contact admissions at diplomacy.edu Like us on FaceBook Follow us on Twitter Our website Our network *Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Wed Sep 25 12:12:10 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:12:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree. I hope the people proposed have the time and energy. If the statement will be in English, I am happy to help with final edits. Thanks to all, Ginger On 25 September 2013 11:10, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > That is something only they can answer but from me, +1 > > As long as a statement we can agree on is made available, the more the > merrier I guess. > > --srs > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro > Date: 09/25/2013 8:22 PM (GMT+05:30) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > > > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel could > (should) be part of the task-force. : ) > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > >> Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other brazilian >> colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we are >> >> I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder ** wrote: >> >> >> If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting >> Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as also >> suggested on another list) >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of >> values near and dear to civil society. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> >> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled >> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. >> >> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even >> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the >> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil >> could be approved as we dream it should. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >> Dear Raphael, >> >> You are right. >> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want >> to talk "Multistakeholder". >> If I consider this paragraph for instance : >> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating >> collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the >> private sector." >> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she >> wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY >> >> >> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT >> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président >> >> >> >> >> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général >> >> >> >> >> Skype : jpnkurunziz >> >> >> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza >> Tel : +257 79 981459 >> >> >> ________________________________ >> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro >> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >> Carolina Rossini >> >> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 >> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN >> >> >> >> Three mentions to "multilateral". >> No mention to "multistakeholder". >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 25 12:17:56 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:17:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> <141558d8500.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <52430CB4.5020703@cafonso.ca> I would not like to take on this task since I am deeply involved here and might introduce bias which would delay approval by our flock -- this needs to be from the international civil society community. It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors). fraternal regards --c.a. On 09/25/2013 11:52 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel > could (should) be part of the task-force. : ) > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other > brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we are > > I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder __ wrote: > >> >> If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting >> Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as >> also suggested on another list) >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of >>> values near and dear to civil society. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>>> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled >>>> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. >>>> >>>> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even >>>> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the >>>> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil >>>> could be approved as we dream it should. >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>>> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >>>>> Dear Raphael, >>>>> >>>>> You are right. >>>>> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want >>>>> to talk "Multistakeholder". >>>>> If I consider this paragraph for instance : >>>>> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating >>>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the >>>>> private sector." >>>>> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she >>>>> wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >>>>> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT >>>>> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Skype : jpnkurunziz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza >>>>> Tel : +257 79 981459 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro >>>>> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >>>>> ; >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>>> >>>>> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 >>>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Three mentions to "multilateral". >>>>> No mention to "multistakeholder". >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 12:45:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:45:14 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca> References: <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org> <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <00d101ceba0e$9cca5fa0$d65f1ee0$@gmail.com> The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references in the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the ambiguity and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and users) of the latter terminology/methodology. The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their times the UNDP and UNESCO. The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning at this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else through the potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden. At this point I see no overwhelming reason to go with what we don't know (MSism) and discarding something we do know (MLism) and a lot of potential risks to democratic governance by doing so, even if we have certain recent reservations. M. -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:02 AM To: Anja Kovacs; Anne Jellema Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Rousseff sees "multilateral" as "among nations", not "among governments". But I do understand the term in the international diplomatic scene takes a meaning opposed to what civil society defends and each government has its own particular interpretation -- BTW, as do different civil society "tribes". My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that "12-letter word" in her statement. fraternal regards --c.a. On 09/25/2013 12:37 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I agree with Anne that the speech was clever in many ways, but am also > a little worried about how the continuous references to > multilateralism will be read in our own domestic context, where the > importance of these statements from a Brazilian perspective is not > necessarily fully appreciated or understood in its nuances. The whole > debate about whether a reformed Internet governance should take a > multilateral or multistakeholder route *is* gaining momentum at the > moment, and if we as international civil society are going to make a > comment on the Brazilian president's speech, I do think we have to > comment on her remarks on this issue as well - or our own stance on > the question of multistakeholderism might be misunderstood in our own countries. > > Isn't there a way in which we can do so without undermining the > Brazilian national agenda (or even better, by supporting that agenda)? > If so, I'll be very happy to support a letter but if this is not noted > at all, it might be difficult for us to do so, as silence could be read as implicit approval. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > > On 25 September 2013 20:33, Anne Jellema wrote: > >> I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter >> could help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's >> advisors in the near future to better understand her position and >> lobby on the best ways for Brazil to show international leadership in this area. >> >> As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other >> global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has >> often managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by >> positioning itself very strategically as a bridge-builder between >> "South" and "North" blocs (to caricature them very crudely). Reading >> her speech, and the clever way it managed to pick up on key demands >> and buzzwords from both sides of the internet governance divide, I >> did wonder whether Brazil is once again angling to set itself up as >> the player that can broker pragmatic compromises between competing >> ideologies. If so, I think that's probably good news, especially >> given that the PT in power has usually been relatively open to working with civil society. >> >> Cheers >> Anne >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society >>> commending her on her speech. We could mention our support and >>> wishes for the Marco Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder question. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote: >>> >>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the >>> need to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to >>> interfere in what our Brazilian friends are fully capable of >>> handling, other than to say I fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos! >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view. >>>> >>>> One step at the time. >>>> >>>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br >>>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a >>>> LOT for our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil. >>>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality >>>> provisions from the draft bill. >>>> >>>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel >>>> of communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for >>>> internet public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on >>>> using the word "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus >>>> on this major achievement. >>>> >>>> It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new. >>>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian >>>> positions at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency. For >>>> instance, in our previous opinion on the role of States. >>>> Nevertheless, positions from our Ministry of Foreign Affairs >>>> towards multistakeholderism are very clear and positive. And now >>>> CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct explain all >>>> the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope. >>>> >>>> So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having >>>> the President referring to these principles - an to Internet >>>> Policies - in the UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be >>>> in a panel at the Council of Europe a few minutes after she >>>> delivered the speech and managed to incorporate some of her quotes >>>> in my presentation. The public got really impressed. >>>> >>>> all the best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear people, >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really >>>>> be far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her >>>>> discourse. Let us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: >>>>> she entered the room to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 >>>>> Principles in hand and the first thing she told us was she agreed with them. >>>>> >>>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur >>>>> (result of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with >>>>> (which is the one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to >>>>> fight for it, although recognizing that as bill of law transiting >>>>> through Congress it might suffer modifications which she might >>>>> veto but Congress could reverse and so on -- in summary, normal >>>>> practice in a democratic State. The big challenge now is the >>>>> process in Congress, where the transnational telcos and big media have enormous power. >>>>> >>>>> frt rgds >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>>>>> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance >>>>>> must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic >>>>>> manner, with >>>>> the >>>>>> participation of the various sectors of society, thereby >>>>>> preserving >>>>> and >>>>>> encouraging its character as a collective creation." >>>>>> >>>>>> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic >>>>>> governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating >>>>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, >>>>>> Governments and the >>>>> private >>>>>> sector." >>>>>> >>>>>> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that >>>>> Internet >>>>>> governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines >>>>> Internet >>>>>> governance as something "with the participation of the various >>>>> sectors of >>>>>> society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out >>>>>> with stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and >>>>>> the private sector." >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you see my point? >>>>>> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN. >>>>>>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN. >>>>>>> C >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>> >> *Carolina Rossini* >>>>>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open >>>>>>> Technology Institute *New America Foundation* >>>>> >> // >>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389> >>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >>>>>>> visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >>>>> visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, >>> association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org po box 29755, >>> melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> Chief Executive Officer >> Cape Town, RSA >> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652 >> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 >> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 >> Skype anne.jellema >> @afjellema >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, >> USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu Wed Sep 25 12:46:40 2013 From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:46:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Call_for_Tenders_SMART_2013/N004_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=93European_Capability_for_Situational_Awareness=94_-_Eu?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ropean_Federation_for_cyber-censorship_and_human_rights_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?monitoring?= Message-ID: Dear all, First of all I'm sorry for cross-posting. Please note the deadline for the ECSA tender SMART 2013/N004 (normally tomorrow 26 September) has been extended at the request of several bidders until 1 October at 16.00h. The opening of the tender has also been postponed: 15 October Attached you can find the new official contract notice that will be published tomorrow at 9.00am in the Official Journal of the European Union. The SPECS are also enclosed. I copy the original email below for your convenience. Best regards Ms Camino Manjon Sierra European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; EU Registry; Internet and Human Rights Desk Officer Iran, Syria , Sudan, Iraq & Yemen Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-78797 M: +32-488-203-447 Twitter @msprotonneutron Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240 The purpose of this email is to inform you of the recent publication of the Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA). If you are interested in this contract, you should submit your tender no later than26/09/2013. You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender, tender specifications and model contract) in the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/smart-2013n004-—-european-capability-situational-awareness and attached for those using certain tools which have proven to be a limitation to access our documentation. At the initiative of the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), and in close cooperation with other European Commission services (DG Development and Cooperation and DG Enterprise) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Commission has put in place the No-Disconnect Strategy. The goal of this policy toolkit is to provide on-going support to counter-censorship and surveillance to facilitate the role of activists, political dissidents, bloggers, journalists and citizens living and/or operating in high-risk environments, or elsewhere. This way we make operational our commitment to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms online and support that the No-Disconnect Strategy embraces the wider EU strategy for Human Rights. - http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/ - http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf For those who are not familiar with the Strategy, its four main strands of activity are: (1) development of technological tools; (2) training/awareness and capacity building; (3) development of methods to provide a global capability for situational awareness; and (4) cooperation with the ICT/Internet industry, EU Member States and third countries, also involved in the protection of online freedom of expression and privacy. The tender "European capability for situational awareness" (ECSA) is aimed at providing to the European Commission the framework necessary to evaluate the creation of a wider European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring, and the underlying system infrastructure required to that end. To achieve this objective, the ICT-PSP Work Programme 2013 will support the development of the ECSA platform with an allocation of approximately EUR 400,000 for the initial phase (conceptualization of the platform according to the conditions seth forth in the tender specifications that you will find in the link above and in attachment, and the design of a first prototype of the systems infrastructure and interactive map). The idea departed partially from the “OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy Making”, in particular the following two ones: · “Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process. Publicly available data can increase the quality of all stakeholders’ participation in Internet policy- making as well as governments’ ultimate policy decisions. The collection, validation and public dissemination of objective data to inform Internet policy decisions should be reinforced and used to augment the combined research capacities of governments, other competent authorities and other stakeholders. International comparable metrics will help to quantify the on-going economic developments and assess the proportionality and effectiveness of any policy solutions created in multi-stakeholder processes. Data gathering should be undertaken so as to avoid administrative burdens and data analysis should be done carefully to enable sound policymaking.” · “Transparency, fair process, and accountability. In order to build public trust in the Internet environment, policy-making processes and substantive policies that ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability should be encouraged. Transparency ensures that Internet users have timely, accessible, and actionable information that is relevant to their rights and interests”. Is in this context in which we realized that a tool enabling evidence-based policy-making and transparency related, in this case, to censorship and surveillance, could also provide situational awareness not only to EU policy and decision-makers but also to those affected directly by the aforementioned restrictions, maximizing their empowerment: political dissidents, activists, human rights defenders, bloggers, journalists and several other essential actors in the fight for online (and offline) freedom. Now, shifting the focus of this email to the tender itself, the tasks outlined in the tender specifications will address, among several other things, the definition of the governance framework and systems infrastructure that should govern and support the operations of the federation of organizations that tenderers will have to propose, taking into account that all sorts of expertise on Internet-event monitoring will be needed. With the view to translate the Internet reality into a “cartography” of cyber-censorship and cyber-surveillance, the federation will be anchored in a dynamic platform -controlled from a dashboard-, where the aforementioned federated network of partners with Internet monitoring and, more specifically Internet censorship and surveillance monitoring capabilities, will aggregate a variety of clearly defined sets of data (including Open Data and Big Data) coming from several sources and stakeholders. We expect this project to provide reliable and real time or near-real time information on the status of network connectivity, network traffic alterations/restrictions and serve as a new source of Internet security incidents, as well as to provide timely information on legal, social and political developments related to the use of the Internet and media for the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. As it seems obvious, the gathering of data (and in some cases of information) will be related to the location and intensity of censorship and surveillance in non-democratic countries, nascent democracies, jurisdictions where human rights are most at risk and other parts of the globe where similar trends have been arising in recent times. The data gathering will have two tracks: the first one addressing restrictions/disruptions of Internet and ICT infrastructure, access, traffic, content, Internet cut-offs or security events, inter alia, overlaid with a second track of contextual data of political, social, legal, regulatory, policy, media, journalistic or human rights nature, related to the Internet or not and with a global scope, which would help provide the full picture and enable the EU and other actors to swiftly act upon reliable and timely information. Examples of this second track could be arrests of journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression in times of elections, laws affecting Internet openness, crack-downs on activists or restriction to NGO´s establishment, to name a few. That near-real time information will be mashed-up and controlled from the dashboard, and presented in a user-friendly manner, ideally in different layers (thematic, geographic, highly troubled areas, etc.) through interactive visualizations via live maps as an essential condition, coupled with the generation of alarms; subject-matter reports and geographical reports. As you will see in the tender, new ways of dissemination of information are most welcome. As highlighted before, this type of capability is expected to enhance the current EU´s early-warning, decision-making and policy-making skills and strengthen the level of situational awareness of, but not limited to, stakeholders such as digital activists or human rights defenders, but even researchers. In particular, the tasks you will find in the tender are: Task 1 Creation of an Internet censorship monitoring Federation Task 2 Provision of a Data Sources catalogue Task 3 Definition of a Data Governance Framework Task 4 Definition of the technical and infrastructure specifications, features and functionalities (including security measures) Task 5 Recommendations Some of the expected positive impacts of ECSA we can name are as follows: (1) Ensuring Internet resilience and stability; (2) Reinforcement of early-warning capabilities and emergency response concerning events affecting human rights, legal, policy and media restrictions; (3) Better measurement of the evolution of non-democratic environments to democratic ones ("democracy thermometer"); (4) Better exchange of information and capacity building among relevant stakeholders; (5) Better response in case of attacks to human rights and activists networks; (6) Creation of a body of knowledge at the disposal of academics and researchers, as well as of the general public (Open Science); (7) Publication of timely reports and alarms on relevant Internet and human rights related events (including activity and threat reports); (8) Support to the implementation of Human Rights-based approaches; (9) Optimization of resources and tailored targeted grant support in areas where human rights are most at risk in terms of cyber censorship and surveillance; (10) Reinforcement of capabilities to ensure global Internet connectivity; (11) Provide (new) methods for network measurement; (12) Provision of a new source of information about Internet security and infrastructure incidents; or (13) Provision of capabilities for crisis mapping, among others. In Part 1 of the Tender specifications you will find the Technical Description, containing the general context, the specific context and examples of organisations and existing projects in the area of Internet monitoring (whereby some of your projects we regularly observe are mentioned). As regards the Eligibility Criteria, we recommend you to have a look in detail at Part 2 of the Tender Specifications containing the Administrative Details, in particular Section 1 “Eligibility requirements”; Section 2 “Administrative Requirements”; Section 5.2 “Selection Criteria” and Section 5.3 “Award Criteria”. At the request of tenderers, additional information will be communicated solely for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the contract and the tender specifications. Such information will have to be communicated on the same date to all interested parties hence your questions will be published in the link referred to in the document “invitation to the tender”. This means that for whatever doubt you may have, you can write directly to me (camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu) copying our functional mailbox CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu. We will do so for transparency reasons and to guarantee equal competition, making publicly available both question and answers. The opening of received tenders will take place on 10/10/2013 at 10.00h in the Commission building located in Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Brussels. One authorised representative of each tenderer may attend the opening. Tenderers who plan to attend this opening session can inform by e-mail to camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu; by fax (+32 2 296 89 70) or letter at least 72h in advance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ENOTICES_CONNECT-2013-128737-F14-EN.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 76468 bytes Desc: ENOTICES_CONNECT-2013-128737-F14-EN.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ECSAFinalTenderspecifications-5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 622210 bytes Desc: ECSAFinalTenderspecifications-5.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 12:53:35 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:23:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <52430CB4.5020703@cafonso.ca> References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> <141558d8500.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52430CB4.5020703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Would it perhaps be possible then to ask her as part of the statement to clarify her stance on the global model which she preposes, in particular with regard to the involvement of stakeholders other than the government? By linking this up with her obvious support of the Brazilian domestic model, this could perhaps be done in a way that asks the question without undoing any of the fabulousness of her speech. As I noted on another list, my aim is not to dismiss Dilma's intervention, but to ensure that we do not come up with a statement that puts many of us in a very difficult position vis-a-vis our own governments inthe ongoing negotiations on the best model of global Internet governance. This is especially true in contexts such as India where multistakeholderism, though making progress, is far from as established as it is in Brazil and in fact continues to be extremely fragile. Thanks and best, Anja On 25 September 2013 21:47, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I would not like to take on this task since I am deeply involved here > and might introduce bias which would delay approval by our flock -- this > needs to be from the international civil society community. > > It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late > night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping > these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to > the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors). > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 09/25/2013 11:52 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel > > could (should) be part of the task-force. : ) > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > wrote: > > > > Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other > > brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we > are > > > > I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder __ wrote: > > > >> > >> If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting > >> Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as > >> also suggested on another list) > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >>> In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of > >>> values near and dear to civil society. > >>> > >>> --srs (iPad) > >>> > >>>> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she > travelled > >>>> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. > >>>> > >>>> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality > (not even > >>>> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the > >>>> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco > Civil > >>>> could be approved as we dream it should. > >>>> > >>>> fraternal regards > >>>> > >>>> --c.a. > >>>> > >>>>> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > >>>>> Dear Raphael, > >>>>> > >>>>> You are right. > >>>>> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. > Did she want > >>>>> to talk "Multistakeholder". > >>>>> If I consider this paragraph for instance : > >>>>> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out > with transparency by stimulating > >>>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, > Governments and the > >>>>> private sector." > >>>>> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I > suppose she > >>>>> wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > >>>>> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > >>>>> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Skype : jpnkurunziz > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > >>>>> Tel : +257 79 981459 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro diegocanabarro at gmail.com> > >>>>> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; > >>>>> Carolina Rossini carolina.rossini at gmail.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 > >>>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Three mentions to "multilateral". > >>>>> No mention to "multistakeholder". > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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) > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 12:56:19 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:56:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> <141558d8500.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52430CB4.5020703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I started a pad. Helpers, please help. Haters, please keep off. https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Would it perhaps be possible then to ask her as part of the statement to > clarify her stance on the global model which she preposes, in particular > with regard to the involvement of stakeholders other than the government? > By linking this up with her obvious support of the Brazilian domestic > model, this could perhaps be done in a way that asks the question without > undoing any of the fabulousness of her speech. > > As I noted on another list, my aim is not to dismiss Dilma's intervention, > but to ensure that we do not come up with a statement that puts many of us > in a very difficult position vis-a-vis our own governments inthe ongoing > negotiations on the best model of global Internet governance. This is > especially true in contexts such as India where multistakeholderism, though > making progress, is far from as established as it is in Brazil and in fact > continues to be extremely fragile. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > On 25 September 2013 21:47, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> I would not like to take on this task since I am deeply involved here >> and might introduce bias which would delay approval by our flock -- this >> needs to be from the international civil society community. >> >> It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late >> night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping >> these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to >> the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors). >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/25/2013 11:52 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel >> > could (should) be part of the task-force. : ) >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > > wrote: >> > >> > Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other >> > brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we >> are >> > >> > I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement >> > >> > --srs (htc one x) >> > >> > On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder __ wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting >> >> Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as >> >> also suggested on another list) >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >>> In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of >> >>> values near and dear to civil society. >> >>> >> >>> --srs (iPad) >> >>> >> >>>> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she >> travelled >> >>>> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. >> >>>> >> >>>> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality >> (not even >> >>>> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the >> >>>> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco >> Civil >> >>>> could be approved as we dream it should. >> >>>> >> >>>> fraternal regards >> >>>> >> >>>> --c.a. >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >> >>>>> Dear Raphael, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> You are right. >> >>>>> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. >> Did she want >> >>>>> to talk "Multistakeholder". >> >>>>> If I consider this paragraph for instance : >> >>>>> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out >> with transparency by stimulating >> >>>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, >> Governments and the >> >>>>> private sector." >> >>>>> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I >> suppose she >> >>>>> wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Regards >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >> >>>>> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT >> >>>>> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Skype : jpnkurunziz >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza >> >>>>> Tel : +257 79 981459 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ________________________________ >> >>>>> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> >> >>>>> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >> >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; >> >>>>> Carolina Rossini > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 >> >>>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Three mentions to "multilateral". >> >>>>> No mention to "multistakeholder". >> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>>> >> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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) >> > -- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 13:04:01 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:04:01 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <00d101ceba0e$9cca5fa0$d65f1ee0$@gmail.com> References: <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org> <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca> <00d101ceba0e$9cca5fa0$d65f1ee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references in > the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the ambiguity > and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and > users) of the latter terminology/methodology. > > The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the > UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their times > the UNDP and UNESCO. > > The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning at > this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else through the > potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent > governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the > (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden. MSism needs no "redemption". Just because one supporter of it got caught doing dodgy things does not somehow tar the entire structure of Internet policy making that has been built over decades. I for one would object quite strongly to the Caucus supporting MLism over MSism. I think it was a fine speech but if we are going to write a letter of support, we should note that we have always supported MSism. If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands of governments only! -- 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 joana at varonferraz.com Wed Sep 25 13:16:58 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:16:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB Message-ID: Diego, as you, and others, might not be at bestbits list, let me mention that this issue about the letter has been debated on both lists. So lets merge the threads here and change the tone of the letter so it can be inclusive of all the international civil society organizations and individuals, ok? Fundamental guidelines for moving forward: Bearing in mind the points raised by Anja and other folks on the issue of multistakeholderism, I would suggest that particularly with the goal not to undermine the positive aspect of Dilma's speech, and the impacts on the national scenario, we hear to Carlos Afonso's wise (insider) suggestion and mention this critical topic in a positive manner as well: "My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that "12-letter word" in her statement." The link again: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil cheers joana On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > I started a pad. Helpers, please help. Haters, please keep off. > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> Would it perhaps be possible then to ask her as part of the statement to >> clarify her stance on the global model which she preposes, in particular >> with regard to the involvement of stakeholders other than the government? >> By linking this up with her obvious support of the Brazilian domestic >> model, this could perhaps be done in a way that asks the question without >> undoing any of the fabulousness of her speech. >> >> As I noted on another list, my aim is not to dismiss Dilma's >> intervention, but to ensure that we do not come up with a statement that >> puts many of us in a very difficult position vis-a-vis our own governments >> inthe ongoing negotiations on the best model of global Internet governance. >> This is especially true in contexts such as India where >> multistakeholderism, though making progress, is far from as established as >> it is in Brazil and in fact continues to be extremely fragile. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Anja >> >> >> >> On 25 September 2013 21:47, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> I would not like to take on this task since I am deeply involved here >>> and might introduce bias which would delay approval by our flock -- this >>> needs to be from the international civil society community. >>> >>> It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late >>> night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping >>> these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to >>> the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors). >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 09/25/2013 11:52 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>> > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel >>> > could (should) be part of the task-force. : ) >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> > > wrote: >>> > >>> > Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other >>> > brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we >>> are >>> > >>> > I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement >>> > >>> > --srs (htc one x) >>> > >>> > On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder __ wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting >>> >> Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as >>> >> also suggested on another list) >>> >> >>> >> parminder >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> wrote: >>> >>> In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of >>> >>> values near and dear to civil society. >>> >>> >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she >>> travelled >>> >>>> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality >>> (not even >>> >>>> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the >>> >>>> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco >>> Civil >>> >>>> could be approved as we dream it should. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> fraternal regards >>> >>>> >>> >>>> --c.a. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >>> >>>>> Dear Raphael, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> You are right. >>> >>>>> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. >>> Did she want >>> >>>>> to talk "Multistakeholder". >>> >>>>> If I consider this paragraph for instance : >>> >>>>> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out >>> with transparency by stimulating >>> >>>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, >>> Governments and the >>> >>>>> private sector." >>> >>>>> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I >>> suppose she >>> >>>>> wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Regards >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >>> >>>>> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT >>> >>>>> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Skype : jpnkurunziz >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza >>> >>>>> Tel : +257 79 981459 >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>> >>>>> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> >>> >>>>> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >>> >>>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; >>> >>>>> Carolina Rossini >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 >>> >>>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Three mentions to "multilateral". >>> >>>>> No mention to "multistakeholder". >>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >>> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>> >>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To 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) >>> > -- >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> > > > > -- > 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 13:21:45 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:21:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19D94929-B8AA-4EB6-9B64-8A3E2C98C5B3@gmail.com> Agree Sent from my iPhone On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Diego, as you, and others, might not be at bestbits list, let me mention that this issue about the letter has been debated on both lists. So lets merge the threads here and change the tone of the letter so it can be inclusive of all the international civil society organizations and individuals, ok? > > Fundamental guidelines for moving forward: > > Bearing in mind the points raised by Anja and other folks on the issue of multistakeholderism, I would suggest that particularly with the goal not to undermine the positive aspect of Dilma's speech, and the impacts on the national scenario, we hear to Carlos Afonso's wise (insider) suggestion and mention this critical topic in a positive manner as well: > > "My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that "12-letter word" in her statement." > > The link again: > https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil > > > cheers > > joana > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> I started a pad. Helpers, please help. Haters, please keep off. >> >> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Would it perhaps be possible then to ask her as part of the statement to clarify her stance on the global model which she preposes, in particular with regard to the involvement of stakeholders other than the government? By linking this up with her obvious support of the Brazilian domestic model, this could perhaps be done in a way that asks the question without undoing any of the fabulousness of her speech. >>> >>> As I noted on another list, my aim is not to dismiss Dilma's intervention, but to ensure that we do not come up with a statement that puts many of us in a very difficult position vis-a-vis our own governments inthe ongoing negotiations on the best model of global Internet governance. This is especially true in contexts such as India where multistakeholderism, though making progress, is far from as established as it is in Brazil and in fact continues to be extremely fragile. >>> >>> Thanks and best, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> On 25 September 2013 21:47, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> I would not like to take on this task since I am deeply involved here >>>> and might introduce bias which would delay approval by our flock -- this >>>> needs to be from the international civil society community. >>>> >>>> It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late >>>> night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping >>>> these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to >>>> the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors). >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 09/25/2013 11:52 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>>> > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel >>>> > could (should) be part of the task-force. : ) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other >>>> > brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we are >>>> > >>>> > I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement >>>> > >>>> > --srs (htc one x) >>>> > >>>> > On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder __ wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting >>>> >> Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as >>>> >> also suggested on another list) >>>> >> >>>> >> parminder >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>> In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of >>>> >>> values near and dear to civil society. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled >>>> >>>> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even >>>> >>>> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the >>>> >>>> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil >>>> >>>> could be approved as we dream it should. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Raphael, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> You are right. >>>> >>>>> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want >>>> >>>>> to talk "Multistakeholder". >>>> >>>>> If I consider this paragraph for instance : >>>> >>>>> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating >>>> >>>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the >>>> >>>>> private sector." >>>> >>>>> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she >>>> >>>>> wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Regards >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >>>> >>>>> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT >>>> >>>>> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Skype : jpnkurunziz >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza >>>> >>>>> Tel : +257 79 981459 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>>> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro >>>> >>>>> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >>>> >>>>> ; >>>> >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 >>>> >>>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Three mentions to "multilateral". >>>> >>>>> No mention to "multistakeholder". >>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> > >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> > To 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) >>>> > -- >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> 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) >> -- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 13:22:12 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:22:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: <19D94929-B8AA-4EB6-9B64-8A3E2C98C5B3@gmail.com> References: <19D94929-B8AA-4EB6-9B64-8A3E2C98C5B3@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Carolina wrote: > Agree > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Diego, as you, and others, might not be at bestbits list, let me mention > that this issue about the letter has been debated on both lists. So lets > merge the threads here and change the tone of the letter so it can be > inclusive of all the international civil society organizations and > individuals, ok? > > Fundamental guidelines for moving forward: > > Bearing in mind the points raised by Anja and other folks on the issue of > multistakeholderism, I would suggest that particularly with the goal not to > undermine the positive aspect of Dilma's speech, and the impacts on the > national scenario, we hear to Carlos Afonso's wise (insider) suggestion and > mention this critical topic in a positive manner as well: > > "My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of > the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful > window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that > "12-letter word" in her statement." > > The link again: > https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil > > > cheers > > joana > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I started a pad. Helpers, please help. Haters, please keep off. >> >> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> Would it perhaps be possible then to ask her as part of the statement to >>> clarify her stance on the global model which she preposes, in particular >>> with regard to the involvement of stakeholders other than the government? >>> By linking this up with her obvious support of the Brazilian domestic >>> model, this could perhaps be done in a way that asks the question without >>> undoing any of the fabulousness of her speech. >>> >>> As I noted on another list, my aim is not to dismiss Dilma's >>> intervention, but to ensure that we do not come up with a statement that >>> puts many of us in a very difficult position vis-a-vis our own governments >>> inthe ongoing negotiations on the best model of global Internet governance. >>> This is especially true in contexts such as India where >>> multistakeholderism, though making progress, is far from as established as >>> it is in Brazil and in fact continues to be extremely fragile. >>> >>> Thanks and best, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> On 25 September 2013 21:47, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> I would not like to take on this task since I am deeply involved here >>>> and might introduce bias which would delay approval by our flock -- this >>>> needs to be from the international civil society community. >>>> >>>> It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late >>>> night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping >>>> these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to >>>> the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors). >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 09/25/2013 11:52 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>>> > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel >>>> > could (should) be part of the task-force. : ) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other >>>> > brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than >>>> we are >>>> > >>>> > I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement >>>> > >>>> > --srs (htc one x) >>>> > >>>> > On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder __ wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> If such is the range of support, lets write a statement >>>> supporting >>>> >> Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as >>>> >> also suggested on another list) >>>> >> >>>> >> parminder >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of >>>> >>> values near and dear to civil society. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she >>>> travelled >>>> >>>> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality >>>> (not even >>>> >>>> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the >>>> >>>> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco >>>> Civil >>>> >>>> could be approved as we dream it should. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Raphael, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> You are right. >>>> >>>>> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by >>>> error. Did she want >>>> >>>>> to talk "Multistakeholder". >>>> >>>>> If I consider this paragraph for instance : >>>> >>>>> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried >>>> out with transparency by stimulating >>>> >>>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, >>>> Governments and the >>>> >>>>> private sector." >>>> >>>>> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I >>>> suppose she >>>> >>>>> wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Regards >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >>>> >>>>> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT >>>> >>>>> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Skype : jpnkurunziz >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza >>>> >>>>> Tel : +257 79 981459 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>>> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro >>>> >>>> >>>>> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >>>> >>>>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; >>>> >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 >>>> >>>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Three mentions to "multilateral". >>>> >>>>> No mention to "multistakeholder". >>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >>>> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> > >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> > To 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) >>>> > -- >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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) >> -- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -- 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 13:25:04 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:25:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global References: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20130925153118@mail65.atl11.rsgsv.net> Message-ID: <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Global Network Initiative > Date: September 25, 2013, 11:31:28 AM EDT > To: Carolina > Subject: Taking the Transparency Push Global > Reply-To: Global Network Initiative > > > News from the Global Network Initiative View this email in your browser > Facebook > Twitter > Website > Email > > GNI Writes to Governments Seeking Surveillance Transparency > The Global Network Initiative has written to the 21 governments in the Freedom Online Coalition, asking them to report on the requests they make for electronic communications surveillance and to make it legally possible for companies to report regularly to the public on the government requests that they receive from law enforcement as well as national security authorities. > > Read international news coverage of the letters: > Tech group asks 21 countries to disclose surveillance requests > Surveillance du Net : une coalition demande aux gouvernements plus de transparence > GNI向21个国家政府发出公开信，要求提高信息监控活动的透明度 > Share > Tweet > Forward to Friend > Multimedia > > GNI and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue at the Stockholm Internet Forum Unconference. > More news > Presidential and Congressional Steps on Communication Surveillance Programs > GNI Comments to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board > Executive Summary of GNI Telecoms report available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish. > Copyright © 2013 Global Network Initiative, All rights reserved. > You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, or through another method. > > Our mailing address is: > Global Network Initiative > 1634 I St. NW > Suite 1100 > Washington, Dc 20006 > > Add us to your address book > unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 13:39:17 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:39:17 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org> <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca> <00d101ceba0e$9cca5fa0$d65f1ee0$@gmail.com> 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 Sep 25 14:16:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:16:07 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org> <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca> <00d101ceba0e$9cca5fa0$d65f1ee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <019101ceba1b$57a02740$06e075c0$@gmail.com> McTim, (and Anja and all By my reckoning significant components of at least two (government and technical community) stakeholders have been shown to be significantly subverted by the directives of the NSA and related agencies to the point where the outputs of past processes have to be viewed with considerable suspicion (from the perspective of operating in good faith in support of the public interest). Without some "redemptive" actions it is I think, equally not possible to trust the outputs of these processes going forward. As for the third component stakeholder (Civil Society), since it would I believe, be the easiest to subvert given its more or less completely porous and largely informal nature hanging the legitimacy of MSism on the contribution of Civil Society would I think be absurd. I would agree with you "If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands of governments only!" but I see finding the appropriate modality for this as a huge challenge to the creativity of all public interested actors in the Internet space and not one that those of us with those concerns can as yet rule out any possible solution. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:04 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Carlos A. Afonso; Anne Jellema; Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references > in the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the > ambiguity and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the > particular uses (and > users) of the latter terminology/methodology. > > The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through > the UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in > their times the UNDP and UNESCO. > > The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my > reckoning at this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if > nothing else through the potentially questionable motives (and > ideologies) of its most ardent governmental and other backers) and we > await its redemption through the > (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden. MSism needs no "redemption". Just because one supporter of it got caught doing dodgy things does not somehow tar the entire structure of Internet policy making that has been built over decades. I for one would object quite strongly to the Caucus supporting MLism over MSism. I think it was a fine speech but if we are going to write a letter of support, we should note that we have always supported MSism. If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands of governments only! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Wed Sep 25 15:15:15 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:15:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <1380040407.45958.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <5241C357.10704@cafonso.ca> <4B6DEDE9-0368-4673-A3FF-79F1FAC56131@hserus.net> <5242F132.3030200@itforchange.net> <141558d8500.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52430CB4.5020703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On 25 Sep 2013, at 12:56, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Haters, please keep off. excuse me? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 25 15:27:29 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:27:29 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org> <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca> <00d101ceba0e$9cca5fa0$d65f1ee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, While I cannot accept any plan that is dominated by States and their multilateral closed club, I don't think that the letter necessarily must be read that way. She does say: > 2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector. And while this is not quite yet an endorsement of the fully participatory democracy I hope MSism leads to, it does seem to aim that way. Yes, is it still top down, as the governments will be stimulating the people as opposed to the people simulating the government, but there are other sentiments that do warrant support. As long as civil society does not bind itself to government leadership by buying into a multilateral vision, I suppose it is possible to come up with something that could get some sort of support. But in one day as Carlos asks? avri On 25 Sep 2013, at 13:04, McTim wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references in >> the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the ambiguity >> and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and >> users) of the latter terminology/methodology. >> >> The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the >> UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their times >> the UNDP and UNESCO. >> >> The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning at >> this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else through the >> potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent >> governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the >> (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden. > > MSism needs no "redemption". Just because one supporter of it got > caught doing dodgy things does not somehow tar the entire structure of > Internet policy making that has been built over decades. > > I for one would object quite strongly to the Caucus supporting MLism > over MSism. I think it was a fine speech but if we are going to write > a letter of support, we should note that we have always supported > MSism. > > If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on > everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands > of governments only! > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 16:23:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:23:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global In-Reply-To: <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com> References: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20130925153118@mail65.atl11.rsgsv.net> <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com> Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this… I know that pursuing this is a major pre-occupation of various US Internet corps (Google, Facebook etc.) and I can see that getting this made public might help them get off the hook a bit (look how few the requests given the number of users we have/items we process etc. What I don't understand is why civil society should be interested in this at all since there seem to be an almost infinite number of ways of gaming this (according to various Snowden documents i.e. one reqyest covering all communications between x and xxxistan for the month of January) Surely CS is concerned with findings ways of managing these practices rather than getting better information on specific items of activity etc.etc. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:25 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Global Network Initiative Date: September 25, 2013, 11:31:28 AM EDT To: Carolina Subject: Taking the Transparency Push Global Reply-To: Global Network Initiative News from the Global Network Initiative View this email in your browser Facebook Twitter Website Email Global Network Initiative - Protecting and Advancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in Information and Communication Technologies GNI Writes to Governments Seeking Surveillance Transparency The Global Network Initiative has written to the 21 governments in the Freedom Online Coalition, asking them to report on the requests they make for electronic communications surveillance and to make it legally possible for companies to report regularly to the public on the government requests that they receive from law enforcement as well as national security authorities. Read international news coverage of the letters: * Tech group asks 21 countries to disclose surveillance requests * Surveillance du Net : une coalition demande aux gouvernements plus de transparence * GNI向21个国家政府发出公开信，要求提高信息监控活动的透明度 Share Tweet Forward to Friend Multimedia GNI and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue at the Stockholm Internet Forum Unconference. More news * Presidential and Congressional Steps on Communication Surveillance Programs * GNI Comments to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board * Executive Summary of GNI Telecoms report available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish. Copyright © 2013 Global Network Initiative, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, or through another method. Our mailing address is: Global Network Initiative 1634 I St. NW Suite 1100 Washington, Dc 20006 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 16:58:55 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:58:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global In-Reply-To: <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com> References: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20130925153118@mail65.atl11.rsgsv.net> <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com> <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sep 25, 2013, at 4:23 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this… > > I know that pursuing this is a major pre-occupation of various US Internet corps (Google, Facebook etc.) and I can see that getting this made public might help them get off the hook a bit (look how few the requests given the number of users we have/items we process etc. > > What I don't understand is why civil society should be interested in this at all since there seem to be an almost infinite number of ways of gaming this (according to various Snowden documents i.e. one reqyest covering all communications between x and xxxistan for the month of January) > > Surely CS is concerned with findings ways of managing these practices rather than getting better information on specific items of activity etc.etc. Michael - While I share your concern regarding potential for "gaming" the reporting as well as a desire to see such "blanket" collection practices curtailed, it is also worthwhile to seek more transparency on the use of these practices. For example, it would be difficult to know whether efforts towards "finding ways of managing these practices" actually yields results unless one has at least some measures of their use. To this end, it's probably worthwhile to advocate for the ability for regular reporting to the public. /John Disclaimer: My views alone and of very limited value. Countries intercepting this message might want to use their limited storage more wisely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 17:15:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:15:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Lu Wei (China's Minister for the Internet): Liberty and Order in Cyberspace Message-ID: <027f01ceba34$735d8ea0$5a18abe0$@gmail.com> (Interesting statement on Internet Governance by Chinese Minister as noted in a comment on my blogpost... M http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-09/09/c_132705681.htm Lu Wei: Liberty and Order in Cyberspace (Full Text) Liberty and Order in Cyberspace Keynote speech at the Fifth China-UK Internet RoundtableSeptember 9, 2013） Lu Wei: Minister of the State Internet Information Office, China Good morning! Since I arrived in the United Kingdom, the birthplace of the World Wide Web, I cannot help recalling a touching moment at the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympic Games. Two teenagers, Frankie and June, gave an exciting performance in tribute to the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, for his gift to the world. Mr. Berners-Lee, sitting in the center of the Olympic Stadium with a smile on his face, tapped on a computer keyboard, and then a row of giant letters flashed around the stadium: “THIS IS FOR EVERYONE”. The sentence is short, but points out the relationship between man and the Internet. As one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, the Internet is a treasure, a resource and a homeland for all mankind. It has turned the world into a “village.” In this “village,” home to 7 billion people, everyone pursues freedom and happiness. But by what means can we achieve and safeguard liberty? The famous writer George Bernard Shaw once said: “Liberty means responsibility.” I think I can also say “Liberty means order.” The two are closely linked, as liberty is the aim of order and order is the safeguard of liberty. Liberty cannot exist without order. Where there is no order, there is no liberty. The more we seek liberty, the more we need order. The essence of order is exactly that it is “for everyone.” For the sake of everyone: we advocate the establishment of an order, in the following six aspects. Firstly, we call for an order of mutual respect. In the United Kingdom, being a “gentleman” means keeping to etiquette and order. In China, we have a parallel title junzi. Being a “junzi” means “not imposing on others what you yourself do not desire.” We also need “Internet junzi” and “Internet gentlemen.” In cyberspace, people with different skin colors, nationalities, cultures and languages should be equally entitled to participation, free speech and development. Although each country has a different status quo, culture and tradition, we should abandon prejudices, respect differences and be tolerant and open. In particular, we should respect cyber sovereignty, discard hegemony and avoid putting our own country’s interests above those of other countries. We should join hands to build an order for the development of the Internet on the basis of mutual respect and equal treatment. Secondly, we should encourage the establishment of an order for sharing information. The Internet was designed for disseminating and sharing information. Information channels capital, influences decision-making and determines transactions. One factor undergirding the competitiveness of a company or institution is whether it is able to understand market rules, predict the outlook, discover opportunities, and control market risks through information. The amount of information a country can obtain is an important symbol of its soft power and influence. The Internet is rife with problems, all of which are related to subjectivity, bias, imbalances and asymmetry of information dissemination. Twenty percent of the world’s population controls 80 percent of the information, while the remaining 80 percent of the population has access to less than 20 percent of the information. This has led to a large information gap. We should strive to break down the information barrier and bridge the information gap. We should make information flow on the Internet freely, safely and in an orderly way, and turn it into a treasure for everyone, thus bringing more benefits to society and humanity. Thirdly, we should encourage the establishment of an order for spreading positive energy. The phrase “positive energy” topped the list of China’s buzzwords in 2012. The popularity of the phrase is attributed to the book, “Rip It Up”, written by the British psychologist Richard Wiseman. The phrase “positive energy” has acquired extra levels of meaning in China today. All positive, sound, inspiring, supportive, hopeful and loving people and things are considered “positive energy.” Positive energy is meant to give people confidence and hope, encourage people to love their country, society and life, as well as to pursue nice things. Everything we do is ultimately for the sake of spreading positive energy. Positive energy knows no boundaries. If everyone were to spread positive energy on the Internet, the world would be a much better place. Fourthly, we should establish an Internet order which is civilized and harmonious. The Internet is a product of social development, and a symbol of modern civilization. It carries the important missions of passing on cultural heritage and promoting civilization. But one cannot forget that there is a large amount of harmful information on the Internet, especially pornographic and violent contents, which have severely impaired teenagers' physical and mental health. The “dregs” of the Internet, if not cleaned in time, will affect social trends, child development, and the sound development of the Internet. The British government has long been committed to protecting young people from exposure to harmful information online. Civilization and progress are the common pursuit of mankind. In order to create a healthy and harmonious Internet environment, all countries should cultivate a civilized Internet, and guide their people to use the Internet in a civilized way. We should utilize the Internet to promote cultural diversity, social progress and civilization. Fifthly, we should establish an Internet order that helps maintain security. The Internet is a worldwide platform for sharing information. It is “a community of common interests”. No country is immune to such global challenges as cybercrime, hacking and invasion of privacy. In cyberspace, it is becoming increasingly difficult to uphold security for one’s own country by sacrificing that of others. It is also not practical to pursue one’s own interests by rejecting others’ needs. China is also a victim of hacking. We have always firmly opposed all forms of Internet attacks. We hope to deepen exchanges and cooperation with other countries in online cyber security, anti-terrorism, law enforcement and protection of privacy. Through joint efforts, we can build a strong foundation to safeguard cyber security. Finally, we should establish an Internet order that features law-based governance. Good order depends on rules. The Internet is a free and open platform. Everyone has the right to speak. However, compliance with the law is the bottom line that no one should violate. Last year, British Olympic diver Tom Daley received a death threat from a Twitter user after missing out on a medal. The user was later arrested. Recently, a British man was arrested for a series of tweets reviling British feminist writer Caroline Criado-Perez and threatening sexual assault. Cyber violence, online rumor and online fraud are the tumors of the Internet. We must stick to the bottom line and exercise governance in accordance with the law. What we advocate is that all stakeholders of the Internet work together to build an international order for Internet governance within the UN framework that is multilateral, democratic and transparent. That will make the Internet more orderly, and better serve the development of all countries and the interests of all mankind. As a developed country in the Internet world, Britain has advanced experience in Internet content management, technical support, industry self-regulation, and laws and regulations. In particular, the UK has formulated a national strategy for the Internet. Such a decision is wise and far-sighted. China is among the latecomers to the Internet. However, China’ s Internet is developing rapidly. It has two distinctive features: a huge Internet population and a huge number of websites. With an Internet penetration rate of 44.1 percent, China has almost 600 million Internet users. And the number is still on the rise. The respective numbers of micro bloggers and WeChat users have both exceed 300 million. More than 200 million micro blogs are posted and forwarded each day. The Chinese mainland hosts more than 2,940,000 websites. Five Chinese websites, Baidu.com, QQ.com, Taobao.com, Sina.com.cn and Sohu.com, are listed in the Top 20 Most Popular Websites in the World in 2013. The Internet is a new platform for many Chinese entrepreneurs to realize their dreams. The Chinese government has stuck to its basic Internet policy: active use, scientific development, law-based administration and ensured security. The Chinese Internet market is open to the world. We are willing to share the fruits of the development of China’s Internet with the world. Recently, the Chinese government introduced a series of measures, such as promoting information consumption, and implementing the "Broadband China" strategy, all of which demonstrate China’s confidence and determination in accelerating Internet development. The Internet in China is less than 20 years old and far from mature. China needs to learn from the UK and other countries with a developed Internet in service provision, management, development, use, and many other aspects. Chinese President Xi Jinping has pointed out that it is in the common interests of the international community to uphold peace, security, openness, and cooperation in cyberspace. There are many things in common between the Internet in China and the Internet in the UK. We have many things to offer each other, and we have carried out good cooperation in recent years. This is the fifth China - UK Internet round-table conference. I feel that all nations across the world, including China and the UK, have more and more consensuses, possess more and enjoy more resources to share and more and more win-win opportunities. Both as rapid developing Internet giants with great global influence, China and the UK play a significant role in establishing the international Internet order and shoulder important responsibilities. We sincerely hope that China and the UK can deepen our consensus and strengthen cooperation in the following five aspects: Firstly, we should establish a regular exchange and communication mechanism. We can open up dialogue channels between the Internet management departments of our two countries. We can also strive to incorporate the Internet roundtable conference into the China-UK Strategic Dialogue Framework so as to lift it to a higher level. Secondly, we should establish a new mechanism for collaborative innovation cooperation. We should encourage our Internet companies to invest in each other’s countries, promote R&D in key technologies and industry cooperation, and promote the popularization and application of new technologies. Thirdly, we should establish a mechanism for research and consultation. We should encourage research exchanges in the major theoretical and practical issues about the Internet and actively explore rules for the development of the Internet. Fourthly, we should establish a cooperation mechanism for cyber security, so as to reinforce coordination on the handling of problems including cyber attack and youth protection, and jointly create a reliable safe and credible cyber environment. Finally, we should establish a mechanism for Internet information sharing, embracing greater openness and tolerance and promoting the flow of information on the Internet in an orderly and universally accessible way. Ladies and gentlemen: The ancient Chinese thinker Confucius said that a truly mature person is someone who is able to "follow the dictates of his heart without transgressing what is right. " In this Internet age, we should perform our duties to establish, maintain and defend order, while enjoying what our hearts desire. I am firmly convinced that the wise peoples of China and the UK will live up to this historical mission. By deepening consensus and promoting cooperation, we can achieve mutual benefit, and help build a new international Internet order and a more beautiful future for the Internet! I sincerely hope that the Internet will bring everybody happiness and health . -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org Wed Sep 25 17:24:36 2013 From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:24:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global In-Reply-To: <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com> References: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20130925153118@mail65.atl11.rsgsv.net> <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com> <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Michael, This is David Sullivan from GNI. There is no shortage of civil society organizations (both GNI members and others) who are on these lists and have been very active in pushing for transparency on surveillance and will have their own responses to your question, but there are a couple of points I'd like to make. First, from GNI's point of view these transparency reforms are a prerequisite to enable an informed debate about putting human rights at the center of communications surveillance regimes. As we said in our statementback in June,"We view such transparency reforms as necessary first steps in examining whether domestic law adequately protects the rights to privacy and freedom of expression." Secondly, our letters to the FOC governments complement the efforts of the coalition that CDT has organizedof more than 60 companies, civil society organizations and other stakeholders who have made a similar ask of the US government. Already legislation has been introduced in response to that letter in both the House and Senate. Those bills have not slowed momentum toward substantive reform (momentum has been building in particular to address the bulk phone records programs), rather they complement and reinforce those efforts. Finally, yes there are definitely ways to "game the stats" in this realm where we need to be very careful. For what it's worth, GNI has been very careful to specify that both governments and companies should report not just on the number of requests they make/receive, but also the number of persons or accounts affected by those orders, to mitigate this concern. All the best, David -- David Sullivan Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative Office: +1 202 741 5048 Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 PGP: 0x60D244AA @David_MSullivan GNI has moved, please note our new address: 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20036 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:23 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this...**** > > ** ** > > I know that pursuing this is a major pre-occupation of various US Internet > corps (Google, Facebook etc.) and I can see that getting this made public > might help them get off the hook a bit (look how few the requests given the > number of users we have/items we process etc.**** > > ** ** > > What I don't understand is why civil society should be interested in this > at all since there seem to be an almost infinite number of ways of gaming > this (according to various Snowden documents i.e. one reqyest covering all > communications between x and xxxistan for the month of January)**** > > ** ** > > Surely CS is concerned with findings ways of managing these practices > rather than getting better information on specific items of activity > etc.etc.**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:25 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > *Subject:* [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global**** > > ** ** > > > > Sent from my iPhone**** > > > Begin forwarded message:**** > > *From:* Global Network Initiative > *Date:* September 25, 2013, 11:31:28 AM EDT > *To:* Carolina > *Subject:* *Taking the Transparency Push Global* > *Reply-To:* Global Network Initiative ** > ** > > News from the Global Network Initiative**** > > View this email in your browser > **** > > > **** > > Facebook > **** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > Twitter > **** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > Website > **** > > ** ** > > **** > > Email **** > > ** ** > > > **[image: Global Network Initiative - Protecting and Advancing Freedom of > Expression and Privacy in Information and Communication Technologies] > ** > **** > > ** ** > GNI Writes to Governments Seeking Surveillance Transparency **** > > ** ** > > The Global Network Initiative has written to the 21 governments in the > Freedom Online Coalition, > asking them to report on the requests they make for electronic > communications surveillance and to make it legally possible for companies > to report regularly to the public on the government requests that they > receive from law enforcement as well as national security authorities. > > Read international news coverage of the letters: **** > > - Tech group asks 21 countries to disclose surveillance requests > **** > - Surveillance du Net : une coalition demande aux gouvernements plus > de transparence > **** > - GNI向21个国家政府发出公开信，要求提高信息监控活动的透明度 > **** > > > **** > > Share > **** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > Tweet > **** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > Forward to Friend > **** > > ** ** > Multimedia**** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > GNI and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue at the Stockholm > Internet Forum Unconference > .**** > More news**** > > - Presidential and Congressional Steps on Communication Surveillance > Programs > **** > - GNI Comments to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board > **** > - Executive Summary of GNI Telecoms report available in Arabic, > Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish > .**** > > *Copyright (c) 2013 Global Network Initiative, All rights reserved.***** > > You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, or > through another method. > > *Our mailing address is:***** > > Global Network Initiative**** > > 1634 I St. NW**** > > Suite 1100**** > > Washington, Dc 20006**** > > > Add us to your address book > **** > > unsubscribe from this list > update subscription preferences > > > [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] > **** > > **** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 17:55:47 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:25:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: <19D94929-B8AA-4EB6-9B64-8A3E2C98C5B3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <141571ed748.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Agreed --srs (htc one x) On 25 September 2013 10:52:12 PM Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > +1 > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Carolina wrote: > > > Agree > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > > Diego, as you, and others, might not be at bestbits list, let me mention > > that this issue about the letter has been debated on both lists. So lets > > merge the threads here and change the tone of the letter so it can be > > inclusive of all the international civil society organizations and > > individuals, ok? > > > > Fundamental guidelines for moving forward: > > > > Bearing in mind the points raised by Anja and other folks on the issue of > > multistakeholderism, I would suggest that particularly with the goal not to > > undermine the positive aspect of Dilma's speech, and the impacts on the > > national scenario, we hear to Carlos Afonso's wise (insider) suggestion and > > mention this critical topic in a positive manner as well: > > > > "My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of > > the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful > > window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that > > "12-letter word" in her statement." > > > > The link again: > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil > > > > > > cheers > > > > joana > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I started a pad. Helpers, please help. Haters, please keep off. > >> > >> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > >> > >>> Would it perhaps be possible then to ask her as part of the statement to > >>> clarify her stance on the global model which she preposes, in particular > >>> with regard to the involvement of stakeholders other than the government? > >>> By linking this up with her obvious support of the Brazilian domestic > >>> model, this could perhaps be done in a way that asks the question without > >>> undoing any of the fabulousness of her speech. > >>> > >>> As I noted on another list, my aim is not to dismiss Dilma's > >>> intervention, but to ensure that we do not come up with a statement that > >>> puts many of us in a very difficult position vis-a-vis our own governments > >>> inthe ongoing negotiations on the best model of global Internet governance. > >>> This is especially true in contexts such as India where > >>> multistakeholderism, though making progress, is far from as established as > >>> it is in Brazil and in fact continues to be extremely fragile. > >>> > >>> Thanks and best, > >>> Anja > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 25 September 2013 21:47, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >>> > >>>> I would not like to take on this task since I am deeply involved here > >>>> and might introduce bias which would delay approval by our flock -- this > >>>> needs to be from the international civil society community. > >>>> > >>>> It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late > >>>> night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping > >>>> these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to > >>>> the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors). > >>>> > >>>> fraternal regards > >>>> > >>>> --c.a. > >>>> > >>>> On 09/25/2013 11:52 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > >>>> > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel > >>>> > could (should) be part of the task-force. : ) > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > >>>> > > wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other > >>>> > brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than > >>>> we are > >>>> > > >>>> > I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement > >>>> > > >>>> > --srs (htc one x) > >>>> > > >>>> > On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder __ wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >> > >>>> >> If such is the range of support, lets write a statement > >>>> supporting > >>>> >> Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as > >>>> >> also suggested on another list) > >>>> >> > >>>> >> parminder > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>> In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of > >>>> >>> values near and dear to civil society. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> --srs (iPad) > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she > >>>> travelled > >>>> >>>> to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality > >>>> (not even > >>>> >>>> aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the > >>>> >>>> transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco > >>>> Civil > >>>> >>>> could be approved as we dream it should. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> fraternal regards > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> --c.a. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>>> On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: > >>>> >>>>> Dear Raphael, > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> You are right. > >>>> >>>>> I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by > >>>> error. Did she want > >>>> >>>>> to talk "Multistakeholder". > >>>> >>>>> If I consider this paragraph for instance : > >>>> >>>>> "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried > >>>> out with transparency by stimulating > >>>> >>>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, > >>>> Governments and the > >>>> >>>>> private sector." > >>>> >>>>> If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I > >>>> suppose she > >>>> >>>>> wanted to mean "Multistakeholder" > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Regards > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > >>>> >>>>> TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > >>>> >>>>> Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Skype : jpnkurunziz > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > >>>> >>>>> Tel : +257 79 981459 > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> ________________________________ > >>>> >>>>> De : Diego Rafael Canabarro > >>>> > >>>> >>>>> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >>>> >>>>> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; > >>>> >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17 > >>>> >>>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Three mentions to "multilateral". > >>>> >>>>> No mention to "multistakeholder". > >>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >>>> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> >> > >>>> > > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> > > >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> > To 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) > >>>> > -- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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) > >> -- > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 joana at varonferraz.com Wed Sep 25 19:40:48 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:40:48 +0200 Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Message-ID: Dear Avri et all, By now the letter looks like this: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil Please, bring your inputs to make it sound more international. We haven't set a time frame to close the drafting and start to collect endorsements, but there is this opportunity that Carlos Afonso has mentioned to deliver it in person (Carlos,please, allow me to quote you again within these two lists): "It would be *extremely important* to have it *ready by tomorrow late night *(it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping these days)*Brazilian time * so I can print it and try and deliver it to the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors)." (wrote 7 hours ago). Depending on what you think about this current draft, it might be feasible to have endorsements by tomorrow night. Let's try to close the drafting process tomorrow at 09:00am (Brazilian time) and have the whole afternoon to collect signatures within Europe/Asia/Africa and the day to do so within the Americas? Sorry for the rush. I'm just trying to follow all the suggestions received in different threads as coherently as possible. best joana On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > While I cannot accept any plan that is dominated by States and their > multilateral closed club, I don't think that the letter necessarily must be > read that way. > > She does say: > > > 2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with > transparency by stimulating > > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and > the private sector. > > And while this is not quite yet an endorsement of the fully participatory > democracy I hope MSism leads to, it does seem to aim that way. > > Yes, is it still top down, as the governments will be stimulating the > people as opposed to the people simulating the government, but there are > other sentiments that do warrant support. > > As long as civil society does not bind itself to government leadership by > buying into a multilateral vision, I suppose it is possible to come up with > something that could get some sort of support. > > But in one day as Carlos asks? > > avri > > > > > On 25 Sep 2013, at 13:04, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references > in > >> the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the > ambiguity > >> and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and > >> users) of the latter terminology/methodology. > >> > >> The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the > >> UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their > times > >> the UNDP and UNESCO. > >> > >> The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning > at > >> this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else > through the > >> potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent > >> governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the > >> (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden. > > > > MSism needs no "redemption". Just because one supporter of it got > > caught doing dodgy things does not somehow tar the entire structure of > > Internet policy making that has been built over decades. > > > > I for one would object quite strongly to the Caucus supporting MLism > > over MSism. I think it was a fine speech but if we are going to write > > a letter of support, we should note that we have always supported > > MSism. > > > > If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on > > everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands > > of governments only! > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 25 20:03:13 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:03:13 +1000 Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E50EDCA034A4892A857CCB5EBBC21BA@Toshiba> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian Peter From: Joana Varon Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:40 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Avri Doria ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Dear Avri et all, By now the letter looks like this: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil Please, bring your inputs to make it sound more international. We haven't set a time frame to close the drafting and start to collect endorsements, but there is this opportunity that Carlos Afonso has mentioned to deliver it in person (Carlos,please, allow me to quote you again within these two lists): "It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors)." (wrote 7 hours ago). Depending on what you think about this current draft, it might be feasible to have endorsements by tomorrow night. Let's try to close the drafting process tomorrow at 09:00am (Brazilian time) and have the whole afternoon to collect signatures within Europe/Asia/Africa and the day to do so within the Americas? Sorry for the rush. I'm just trying to follow all the suggestions received in different threads as coherently as possible. best joana On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, While I cannot accept any plan that is dominated by States and their multilateral closed club, I don't think that the letter necessarily must be read that way. She does say: > 2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector. And while this is not quite yet an endorsement of the fully participatory democracy I hope MSism leads to, it does seem to aim that way. Yes, is it still top down, as the governments will be stimulating the people as opposed to the people simulating the government, but there are other sentiments that do warrant support. As long as civil society does not bind itself to government leadership by buying into a multilateral vision, I suppose it is possible to come up with something that could get some sort of support. But in one day as Carlos asks? avri On 25 Sep 2013, at 13:04, McTim wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references in >> the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the ambiguity >> and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and >> users) of the latter terminology/methodology. >> >> The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the >> UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their times >> the UNDP and UNESCO. >> >> The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning at >> this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else through the >> potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent >> governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the >> (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden. > > MSism needs no "redemption". Just because one supporter of it got > caught doing dodgy things does not somehow tar the entire structure of > Internet policy making that has been built over decades. > > I for one would object quite strongly to the Caucus supporting MLism > over MSism. I think it was a fine speech but if we are going to write > a letter of support, we should note that we have always supported > MSism. > > If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on > everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands > of governments only! > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 25 20:09:06 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:09:06 -0300 Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52437B22.50405@cafonso.ca> Joana, cara mia, great work as always. [] fraterno --c.a. On 09/25/2013 08:40 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Avri et all, > > By now the letter looks like this: > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil > > Please, bring your inputs to make it sound more international. > > We haven't set a time frame to close the drafting and start to collect > endorsements, but there is this opportunity that Carlos Afonso has > mentioned to deliver it in person (Carlos,please, allow me to quote you > again within these two lists): > > "It would be *extremely important* to have it *ready by tomorrow late night > *(it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping these > days)*Brazilian time > * so I can print it and try and deliver it to the Presidenta's hands (or > her closest advisors)." (wrote 7 hours ago). > > Depending on what you think about this current draft, it might be feasible > to have endorsements by tomorrow night. > > Let's try to close the drafting process tomorrow at 09:00am (Brazilian > time) and have the whole afternoon to collect signatures within > Europe/Asia/Africa and the day to do so within the Americas? > > Sorry for the rush. I'm just trying to follow all the suggestions received > in different threads as coherently as possible. > > best > > joana > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While I cannot accept any plan that is dominated by States and their >> multilateral closed club, I don't think that the letter necessarily must be >> read that way. >> >> She does say: >> >>> 2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with >> transparency by stimulating >>> collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and >> the private sector. >> >> And while this is not quite yet an endorsement of the fully participatory >> democracy I hope MSism leads to, it does seem to aim that way. >> >> Yes, is it still top down, as the governments will be stimulating the >> people as opposed to the people simulating the government, but there are >> other sentiments that do warrant support. >> >> As long as civil society does not bind itself to government leadership by >> buying into a multilateral vision, I suppose it is possible to come up with >> something that could get some sort of support. >> >> But in one day as Carlos asks? >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> On 25 Sep 2013, at 13:04, McTim wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>>> The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references >> in >>>> the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the >> ambiguity >>>> and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and >>>> users) of the latter terminology/methodology. >>>> >>>> The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the >>>> UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their >> times >>>> the UNDP and UNESCO. >>>> >>>> The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning >> at >>>> this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else >> through the >>>> potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent >>>> governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the >>>> (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden. >>> >>> MSism needs no "redemption". Just because one supporter of it got >>> caught doing dodgy things does not somehow tar the entire structure of >>> Internet policy making that has been built over decades. >>> >>> I for one would object quite strongly to the Caucus supporting MLism >>> over MSism. I think it was a fine speech but if we are going to write >>> a letter of support, we should note that we have always supported >>> MSism. >>> >>> If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on >>> everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands >>> of governments only! >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Sep 25 20:44:04 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:44:04 +0200 Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Message-ID: Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same > time worse. > > I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs and > the chance of it being read is meagre. > > To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > social justice, would like to express our strong support for the > statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the > United Nations General Assembly. > > (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, > but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). > > And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand > apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. > > Ian Peter > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Sep 25 21:33:39 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:03:39 +0530 Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14157e645f8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. > > Louis > - - - > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same > > time worse. > > > > I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs and > > the chance of it being read is meagre. > > > > To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph > > > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > > committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > > social justice, would like to express our strong support for the > > statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the > > United Nations General Assembly. > > > > (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, > > but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). > > > > And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand > > apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 21:35:07 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:35:07 -0300 Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <14157e645f8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14157e645f8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. > --srs (htc one x) > > On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote: > > Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. > > Louis > - - - > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same >> time worse. >> >> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs >> and the chance of it being read is meagre. >> >> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >> paragraph >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the >> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the >> United Nations General Assembly. >> >> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, >> but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). >> >> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand >> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 25 21:38:51 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:38:51 +1000 Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <14157e645f8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <432D1F61A7F24CC3887C565ACF317F9F@Toshiba> yes, i have been talked into supporting a longer version which I think is good. Joana will post soon for final comments. From: Diego Rafael Canabarro Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:35 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Ian Peter ; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- 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 joana at varonferraz.com Wed Sep 25 21:44:17 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:44:17 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Message-ID: Dear all, Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. * * thanks once again, joana *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. Signatories: On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote: >> >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. >> >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> >>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same >>> time worse. >>> >>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs >>> and the chance of it being read is meagre. >>> >>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >>> paragraph >>> >>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the >>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the >>> United Nations General Assembly. >>> >>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, >>> but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). >>> >>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand >>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 21:46:09 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:46:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] NY Times Editorial: Close the N.S.A.'s Back Doors Message-ID: <033101ceba5a$2ceebef0$86cc3cd0$@gmail.com> Editorial Close the N.S.A.'s Back Doors By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Published: September 21, 2013 In 2006, a federal agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, helped build an international encryption system to help countries and industries fend off computer hacking and theft. Unbeknown to the many users of the system, a different government arm, the National Security Agency, secretly inserted a "back door" into the system that allowed federal spies to crack open any data that was encoded using its technology. Documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, make clear that the agency has never met an encryption system that it has not tried to penetrate. And it frequently tries to take the easy way out. Because modern cryptography can be so hard to break, even using the brute force of the agency's powerful supercomputers, the agency prefers to collaborate with big software companies and cipher authors, getting hidden access built right into their systems. The New York Times, The Guardian and ProPublica recently reported that the agency now has access to the codes that protect commerce and banking systems, trade secrets and medical records, and everyone's e-mail and Internet chat messages, including virtual private networks. In some cases, the agency pressured companies to give it access; as The Guardian reported earlier this year, Microsoft provided access to Hotmail, Outlook.com, SkyDrive and Skype. According to some of the Snowden documents given to Der Spiegel, the N.S.A. also has access to the encryption protecting data on iPhones, Android and BlackBerry phones. These back doors and special access routes are a terrible idea, another example of the intelligence community's overreach. Companies and individuals are increasingly putting their most confidential data on cloud storage services, and need to rely on assurances their data will be secure. Knowing that encryption has been deliberately weakened will undermine confidence in these systems and interfere with commerce. The back doors also strip away the expectations of privacy that individuals, businesses and governments have in ordinary communications. If back doors are built into systems by the N.S.A., who is to say that other countries' spy agencies - or hackers, pirates and terrorists - won't discover and exploit them? The government can get a warrant and break into the communications or data of any individual or company suspected of breaking the law. But crippling everyone's ability to use encryption is going too far, just as the N.S.A. has exceeded its boundaries in collecting everyone's phone records rather than limiting its focus to actual suspects. Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced a bill that would, among other provisions, bar the government from requiring software makers to insert built-in ways to bypass encryption. It deserves full Congressional support. In the meantime, several Internet companies, including Google and Facebook, are building encryption systems that will be much more difficult for the N.S.A. to penetrate, forced to assure their customers that they are not a secret partner with the dark side of their own government. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 22:04:21 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:04:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agreed as well, Joana. Another information that may be important is that Dilma mentioned today that she does not believe that the UN should be involved in all Internet governance issues.The UN should be responsible for making sure that the Internet is not militarized. Diego just mentioned that he heard something along this lines in an interview over the radio and I thought it was a relevant. I take the opportunity to invite you to a debate being co-organized by the Center for Technology and Society of FGV and DiploFoundation about the role of Brazil in the IG regime. Diego and I will be sharing a few thoughts on issues such as impact of the NSA revelations to Brazil-US relations, to the national regulatory/technical landscape and to Brazil's positions on global IG. There will be opportunity for comments and questions. It will be tomorrow (Thursday) at 13:00 GMT. http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/webinar-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy Best wishes -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu Diplomatic Academic Research Editor Diplomat Magazine www.diplomatmagazine.nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 22:20:51 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well done! On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. > > Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. > > thanks once again, > > joana > > Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA > > > Your Excellency, > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. > > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > > 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > Signatories: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. > --srs (htc one x) > On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. >> >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same time worse. >> >> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. >> >> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. >> >> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). >> >> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. >> >> Ian Peter >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 22:24:20 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:24:20 +1200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well done. You can add the following as signatories to the current draft: 1) Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Fiji 2)Pasifika Nexus On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Gene wrote: > Well done! > > > > On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid > more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. > > Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). > Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, > also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President > Dilma. * > * > > thanks once again, > > joana > > *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to > President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th > Session of the **UNGA * > > > Your Excellency, > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your > Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We > commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear > accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles > for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft > Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds > these principles. > > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding > explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of > information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and > of civil liberties > > 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, > private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is > a fundamental pillar. > > Signatories: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >> suresh at hserus.net> wrote: >> >>> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote: >>> >>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. >>> >>> Louis >>> - - - >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same >>>> time worse. >>>> >>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs >>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre. >>>> >>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >>>> paragraph >>>> >>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the >>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of >>>> the United Nations General Assembly. >>>> >>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read >>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). >>>> >>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand >>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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) >> -- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 25 22:24:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:54:18 +0530 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52439AD2.4050009@itforchange.net> Hi All Thanks for all the work done overnight - for us in India.... Havent seen all the emails but jumping to the last one.... I strongly agree with the statement below, but the last point In Brazil, the model is CGI.Br model (for some technical policy issues) plus Marco Civil (with am exemplary bottom up process of law forming, which, since it pertains to full fledged public policies is still voted by people's representative alone)..... I think this is a great model and should be used at other places, and I have often pushed this CGI.Br plus Macro Civil model in India.. The way it is mentioned is *not* the Brazil model, and it seems to be a unsubstantiated attempt to extend CGI.Br model to entire realm of Internet *public policy* making, which isnt there in Brazil, and as far as I know CGI.Br or any other groups have never demanded such incursion on rights and mandate of the Brazilain Parliament by CGI.Br. In fact, I am pretty sure the public of Brazil will reject any such proposal out of hand. I would like 4 to amended as follows: Convey our strong support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance where a multistakeholder body CGI.Br engages with logical infrastructure, naming and technical issues pertaining to the Internet as well as advices the government on larger public policy issues, and larger public policies pertaining to the Internet are developed in a bottom-up, inclusive and deliberative manner of how Marco Civil was developed, before it is voted on by people's representative bodies. This Brazilian model should be widely adopted included at the global level. (This last line is optional.) This above is the fact in Brazil, and that alone can be supported in this statement. Thanks, and best regards parmidner On Thursday 26 September 2013 07:14 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to > avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the > contributions. > > Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian > time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, > also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President > Dilma. * > * > > thanks once again, > > joana > > *Letter from**International C**ivil Society**Organizations****to > President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th > Session of the **UNGA * > > > Your Excellency, > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > world, committed to the development of the Internetand its use for > advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your Excellency > at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations General Assembly. We commend > you for taking a leading roleon these issuesand would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering > Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft > Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > upholds these principles. > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and > demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal > interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation > of human rights and of civil liberties > > 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of theexperiences from theBrazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which > comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and > TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable > Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > Signatories: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > wrote: > > Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal > version. : ) > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. > --srs (htc one x) > > On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. >> >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter >> > wrote: >> >> >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer >> and at the same time worse. >> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than >> two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. >> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – >> the first paragraph >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> around the world, committed to the development of the >> Internetand its use for advancing social justice, would >> like to express our strong supportforthe statement >> delivered this week by yourExcellencyat the 68th Session >> ofthe United Nations General Assembly. >> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and >> elaborate on it). >> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post >> Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t >> going to happen. >> Ian Peter >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 25 22:38:28 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:38:28 -0400 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I find this to be a good statement. I think it is important to bring out the mention of participatory democracy of multiple stakeholder groups that are only ambiguously and secondarily included in the President's speech and to do so without being bombastic or critical about it. I think it was done well and in a way that hopefully represents a compromise between those in civil society that seem to abjure the multistakeholder model and those who still see it as the only path, though perhaps not a golden path but a rocky road. avri On 25 Sep 2013, at 21:44, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. > > Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. > > thanks once again, > > joana > > Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA > > > Your Excellency, > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. > > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > > 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > Signatories: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. > --srs (htc one x) > On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. >> >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same time worse. >> >> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. >> >> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. >> >> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). >> >> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. >> >> Ian Peter >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Sep 25 22:53:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:23:24 +0530 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <141582f4d48.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I am glad to sign on to this specific draft below and thank Joanna, Ian, Diego and others involved in the drafting process. Parminder's comments on the role of cgi are something best internally decided by cgi and it's related stakeholder community, and moreover, there is a blurred line with much crossover between technical coordination and public policy. So I will not endorse his amendment and my support is for the final draft below as presented by Joanna. Suresh Ramasubramanian, Chennai, India In my personal capacity --srs (htc one x) On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid > more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. > > Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). > Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also > Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. * > * > > thanks once again, > > joana > > *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to > President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th > Session of the **UNGA * > > > Your Excellency, > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support > forthe statement delivered this week by your > Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We > commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear > accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles > for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill > of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these > principles. > > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding > explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of > information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and > of civil liberties > > 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder > model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises > representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private > sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is > a fundamental pillar. > > Signatories: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > > > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. > >> --srs (htc one x) > >> > >> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote: > >> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. > >> > >> Louis > >> - - - > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same > >>> time worse. > >>> > >>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs > >>> and the chance of it being read is meagre. > >>> > >>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > >>> paragraph > >>> > >>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > >>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > >>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the > >>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the > >>> United Nations General Assembly. > >>> > >>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, > >>> but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). > >>> > >>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand > >>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. > >>> > >>> Ian Peter > >>> > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > 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) > > -- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Sep 25 23:25:28 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:25:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Quotation (free translation): We're not asking for UN interference, ie, we are not saying: "UN control the Internet." We do not agree with this kind of control to the internet. We're saying: "UN preserve the safety, be sure that the new war does not take okace in the cyber world with hackers and everything." That's it. Source: The Voice of Brazil (Radio Programa, Official Federal Press): http://conteudo.ebcservicos.com.br/programas/a-voz-do-brasil/transcricoes/a-voz-do-brasil-25-09-2013. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Agreed as well, Joana. Another information that may be important is that > Dilma mentioned today that she does not believe that the UN should be > involved in all Internet governance issues.The UN should be responsible for > making sure that the Internet is not militarized. Diego just mentioned that > he heard something along this lines in an interview over the radio and I > thought it was a relevant. > > I take the opportunity to invite you to a debate being co-organized by the > Center for Technology and Society of FGV and DiploFoundation about the role > of Brazil in the IG regime. Diego and I will be sharing a few thoughts on > issues such as impact of the NSA revelations to Brazil-US relations, to the > national regulatory/technical landscape and to Brazil's positions on global > IG. There will be opportunity for comments and questions. It will be > tomorrow (Thursday) at 13:00 GMT. > http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/webinar-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy > > Best wishes > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > Diplomatic Academic Research Editor > Diplomat Magazine > www.diplomatmagazine.nl > > > > > -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 26 00:26:07 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:56:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <436CE68E-C824-4940-8FA2-1D9167D416CC@hserus.net> There has been china and Russia supported language on an international treaty against cyberwar. Somewhat ironic in that bight countries have enough and to spare plausibly deniable and actively used resources in this area. --srs (iPad) > On 26-Sep-2013, at 8:55, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > Quotation (free translation): > > We're not asking for UN interference, ie, we are not saying: "UN control the Internet." We do not agree with this kind of control to the internet. We're saying: "UN preserve the safety, be sure that the new war does not take okace in the cyber world with hackers and everything." That's it. > > Source: The Voice of Brazil (Radio Programa, Official Federal Press): http://conteudo.ebcservicos.com.br/programas/a-voz-do-brasil/transcricoes/a-voz-do-brasil-25-09-2013. > > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Agreed as well, Joana. Another information that may be important is that Dilma mentioned today that she does not believe that the UN should be involved in all Internet governance issues.The UN should be responsible for making sure that the Internet is not militarized. Diego just mentioned that he heard something along this lines in an interview over the radio and I thought it was a relevant. >> >> I take the opportunity to invite you to a debate being co-organized by the Center for Technology and Society of FGV and DiploFoundation about the role of Brazil in the IG regime. Diego and I will be sharing a few thoughts on issues such as impact of the NSA revelations to Brazil-US relations, to the national regulatory/technical landscape and to Brazil's positions on global IG. There will be opportunity for comments and questions. It will be tomorrow (Thursday) at 13:00 GMT. http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/webinar-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy >> >> Best wishes >> -- >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> Diplomatic Academic Research Editor >> Diplomat Magazine >> www.diplomatmagazine.nl >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > 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) > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Thu Sep 26 05:25:15 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 05:25:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_CITI_State_of_Tele?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?com_2013_=96_Can_Broadband_Networks_Handle_Cloud-Based_V?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ideo_Media=3F?= Message-ID: State of Telecom is always a blockbuster, and this year is no exception. In 2012, as the WCIT approached, the focus turned to OTT video (see archive) - primarily business models and policy, SOT2013 embraces and extends that to all cloud-based rich media, and the stress they put on networks. It is evident that the boffins at CITI see this as the critical issue for the future development of the telecom industry. The afternoon panel with Susan Crawford, Stephen Conroy, and Henning Schulzrinne is not to be missed. joly posted: "Today, Thursday September 26 2013, the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) will host State of Telecom 2013 at Columbus Business School NYC. This year this annual conference has the theme is 'Can Broadband Networks Handle Cloud-Based Video Media" Today, Thursday September 26 2013, the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) will host State of Telecom 2013 at Columbus Business School NYC. This year this annual conference has the theme 'Can Broadband Networks Handle Cloud-Based Video Media? Technology, Business Models, Market Structure, And Policy', and launches a multi-year, multi-discipline project on “Cloud TV” which follows CITI’s work on ultrabroadband (UBB), broadband infrastructure deployment and investment, and “over-the-top (OTT) video. ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré will deliver a lunchtime keynote. Panelists include Susan Crawford, Stephen Conroy, and Henning Schulzrinne. The event will be webcast live via the Internet Society Livestream Channel. What: CITI State of Telecom 2013 Where: Columbia Business School When: Thursday September 26 2013 9am-5.15pm EDT | 0500-1315 UTC Agenda: http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/sot2013 Webcast: http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/citisot2013 Twitter: #citisot2013 Comment See all comments Permalink http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5973 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 pouzin at well.com Thu Sep 26 06:04:58 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:04:58 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Message-ID: IMHO it would be better without parag 4. Cheers, Louis btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 - - - On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid > more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. > > Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). > Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, > also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President > Dilma. * > * > > thanks once again, > > joana > > *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to > President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th > Session of the **UNGA * > > > Your Excellency, > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your > Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We > commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear > accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles > for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft > Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds > these principles. > > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding > explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of > information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and > of civil liberties > > 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, > private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is > a fundamental pillar. > > Signatories: > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 26 06:13:00 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:43:00 +0530 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <141582f4d48.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <141582f4d48.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <524408AC.1020403@itforchange.net> If to some my amendments are not acceptable, then (1) We can either entirely remove point number 4 or (2) just say - "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian Internet governance model". or (3) say " Reinforce our support for the Brazilian Internet governance model, which should be adopted more widely". parminder On Thursday 26 September 2013 08:23 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > I am glad to sign on to this specific draft below and thank Joanna, > Ian, Diego and others involved in the drafting process. > > Parminder's comments on the role of cgi are something best internally > decided by cgi and it's related stakeholder community, and moreover, > there is a blurred line with much crossover between technical > coordination and public policy. > > So I will not endorse his amendment and my support is for the final > draft below as presented by Joanna. > > Suresh Ramasubramanian, Chennai, India > In my personal capacity > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to >> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the >> contributions. >> >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian >> time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. >> >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say >> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to >> President Dilma. * >> * >> >> thanks once again, >> >> joana >> >> *Letter from**International C**ivil Society**Organizations****to >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >> Session of the **UNGA * >> >> >> Your Excellency, >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >> world, committed to the development of the Internetand its use for >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >> strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your >> Excellency at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations General Assembly. >> We commend you for taking a leading roleon these issuesand would like to: >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >> upholds these principles. >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal >> interception of information and data, framing it as a grave >> violation of human rights and of civil liberties >> >> 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of theexperiences from theBrazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and >> TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing. >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> >> Signatories: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> > wrote: >> >> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal >> version. : ) >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > wrote: >> >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: >> >>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. >>> >>> Louis >>> - - - >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer >>> and at the same time worse. >>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than >>> two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. >>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – >>> the first paragraph >>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >>> around the world, committed to the development of the >>> Internetand its use for advancing social justice, would >>> like to express our strong supportforthe statement >>> delivered this week by yourExcellencyat the 68th Session >>> ofthe United Nations General Assembly. >>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would >>> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and >>> elaborate on it). >>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post >>> Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t >>> going to happen. >>> Ian Peter >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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) >> -- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 06:22:01 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:22:01 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Louis and Parminder, Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be extended to the world. - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? Thanks a lot for the understanding. best joana On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > IMHO it would be better without parag 4. > Cheers, Louis > > btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 > - - - > > On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid >> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >> >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). >> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >> >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, >> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President >> Dilma. * >> * >> >> thanks once again, >> >> joana >> >> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >> Session of the **UNGA * >> >> >> Your Excellency, >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear >> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft >> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds >> these principles. >> >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding >> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of >> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and >> of civil liberties >> >> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is >> a fundamental pillar. >> >> Signatories: >> >> > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 06:30:48 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:30:48 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go for: 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Louis and Parminder, > > Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, > due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: > > - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be > extended to the world. > > - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. > > Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs > multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its > not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should > reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach > on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. > > Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this middle > ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit changes > in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? Thanks a > lot for the understanding. > > best > > joana > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >> Cheers, Louis >> >> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >> - - - >> >> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to >>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>> >>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). >>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>> >>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, >>> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President >>> Dilma. * >>> * >>> >>> thanks once again, >>> >>> joana >>> >>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >>> Session of the **UNGA * >>> >>> >>> Your Excellency, >>> >>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >>> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support fo >>> r the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th >>> Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking >>> a leading role on these issues and would like to: >>> >>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>> >>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft >>> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds >>> these principles. >>> >>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding >>> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of >>> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and >>> of civil liberties >>> >>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>> >>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social >>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is >>> a fundamental pillar. >>> >>> Signatories: >>> >>> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Sep 26 06:47:59 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:47:59 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go > for: > > 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for > Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > > Yes Joana, you can go for it. Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 26 06:53:56 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:23:56 +0530 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52441244.8030903@itforchange.net> On Thursday 26 September 2013 03:52 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Louis and Parminder, > > Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the > texto, due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: > > - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be > extended to the world. I am in fact in full agreement to 'The Brazilian model should be extended more widely' ..... I just dont agree with your description as being the existing Brazilian model :) . It sepaks about one part of it but not the other. I am even happy to say "Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance should be extended more widely, including to the global level." > > - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. > > Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs > multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though > its not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, > we should reinforce our support for developing models for a > multistakeholder approach on IG, also having CGI experiences as a > inspiration. > > Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this > middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to > submit changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) > meaning? Thanks a lot for the understanding. Please see the above formulation. But if you insist that CGI experience (which model I like a lot) should be mentioned as an inspiration, I am unable to understand why should then the Marco Civil experience also be mentioned, the two together kind of completing the Brazilian model. so maybe we can say; ""Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder approach to Internet governance, which model should be extended more widely, including to the global level. In this regard CGI and Marco Civil process should serve as an inspiration". This formulation just adds Marco Civil process as a part of Brazilian IG system to your earlier formulation which I understand is only a fact. It takes nothing away from it. parminder > > best > > joana > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > wrote: > > IMHO it would be better without parag 4. > Cheers, Louis > > btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 > - - - > > On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad >> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for >> all the contributions. >> >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or >> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 >> am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out >> the day. >> >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's >> say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in >> hand to President Dilma. * >> * >> >> thanks once again, >> >> joana >> >> *Letter from**International C**ivil >> Society**Organizations****to President Dilma Rousseff in >> support of her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * >> >> >> Your Excellency, >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around >> the world, committed to the development of the Internetand >> its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like >> to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this >> week by your Excellency at the 68th Session ofthe United >> Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading >> roleon these issuesand would like to: >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use >> of the Internet. >> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the >> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da >> Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval >> and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures >> of illegal interception of information and data, framing it >> as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties >> >> 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >> spheres of Internet Governance of theexperiences from >> theBrazilian multistakeholder model of Internet >> governance,ledby CGI.br, which comprises representatives from >> Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,private >> sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing. >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment >> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, >> and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> >> Signatories: >> > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 06:56:48 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:56:48 -0400 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Message-ID: I support this,  and hope all others can -------- Original message -------- From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Joana Varon Cc: "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," ,Diego Rafael Canabarro ,Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Joana Varon wrote: Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go for: 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. Yes Joana, you can go for it. Louis   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 26 07:00:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:30:35 +0530 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> The text is fine as it is. Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing point 4? --srs (htc one x) On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: > Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go > for: > > 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for > Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Hi Louis and Parminder, > > > > Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, > > due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: > > > > - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be > > extended to the world. > > > > - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. > > > > Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs > > multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its > > not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should > > reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach > > on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. > > > > Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this middle > > ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit changes > > in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? Thanks a > > lot for the understanding. > > > > best > > > > joana > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > > >> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. > >> Cheers, Louis > >> > >> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 > >> - - - > >> > >> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to > >>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the > contributions. > >>> > >>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > >>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). > >>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. > >>> > >>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, > >>> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President > >>> Dilma. * > >>> * > >>> > >>> thanks once again, > >>> > >>> joana > >>> > >>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to > >>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th > >>> Session of the **UNGA * > >>> > >>> > >>> Your Excellency, > >>> > >>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > >>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > >>> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support fo > >>> r the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th > >>> Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking > >>> a leading role on these issues and would like to: > >>> > >>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > >>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* > *Principles > >>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >>> > >>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft > >>> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds > >>> these principles. > >>> > >>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding > >>> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of > >>> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and > >>> of civil liberties > >>> > >>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > >>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > >>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > >>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and > TechnologyCommunity, > >>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >>> > >>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > >>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is > >>> a fundamental pillar. > >>> > >>> Signatories: > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Sep 26 07:19:18 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:19:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> The link to endorse the statement is now up: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ Even if you think you already endorsed it in this thread, it will be your responsibility now to add your name to this page. :-) Please also be sure to respond to the email confirmation (or let me know if you don't get it). Thanks. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- 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 joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 07:27:40 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:27:40 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go: 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the world. And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting point. But it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with things. In fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous paragraphs. We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is passing by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the outreach. Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. Best. Joana On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > The text is fine as it is. > > Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing point 4? > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon ** wrote: > > Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go > for: > > 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for > Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Hi Louis and Parminder, >> >> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, >> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >> >> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be >> extended to the world. >> >> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >> >> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs >> multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its >> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should >> reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach >> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >> >> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this >> middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit >> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? >> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >> >> best >> >> joana >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> >>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>> Cheers, Louis >>> >>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>> - - - >>> >>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to >>>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>>> >>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >>>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). >>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>> >>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, >>>> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President >>>> Dilma. * >>>> * >>>> >>>> thanks once again, >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >>>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >>>> Session of the **UNGA * >>>> >>>> >>>> Your Excellency, >>>> >>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >>>> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support f >>>> or the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th >>>> Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking >>>> a leading role on these issues and would like to: >>>> >>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >>>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>> >>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft >>>> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds >>>> these principles. >>>> >>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal >>>> interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of >>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>> >>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >>>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >>>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>> >>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social >>>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is >>>> a fundamental pillar. >>>> >>>> Signatories: >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 26 07:31:55 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:01:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> Jeremy Joana's deadline for proposing amendments to the statement is not over yet, and the statement is changing right now.. Putting up an earlier version for sign on causes a great amount of confusion to the process... regards, parminder On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:49 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The link to endorse the statement is now up: > > http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > > Even if you think you already endorsed it in this thread, it will be > your responsibility now to add your name to this page. :-) Please > also be sure to respond to the email confirmation (or let me know if > you don't get it). > > Thanks. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 26 07:35:24 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:05:24 +0530 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> Joana I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned as bring a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I understand that this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG scene, why should bwe not mention it. parminder On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go: > > 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for > Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > > Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the > world. And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good > starting point. But it still have its problems, as every innovative > way of deal with things. In fact, this letter has also the goal to > straighten CGI political power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. > So, for the purpose if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this > point, ok? The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous > paragraphs. > > We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is > passing by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the > outreach. > > Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. > > Best. > > Joana > > > > > On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > > The text is fine as it is. > > Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing > point 4? > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: > >> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So >> could we go for: >> >> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model >> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Louis and Parminder, >> >> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with >> the texto, due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >> >> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model >> should be extended to the world. >> >> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >> >> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of >> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to >> a conclusion that though its not the time to criticize this >> specific point of Dilma's speech, we should reinforce our >> support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach >> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >> >> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to >> reach this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual >> version or want to submit changes in the language that don't >> affect this (middle ground) meaning? Thanks a lot for the >> understanding. >> >> best >> >> joana >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >> > wrote: >> >> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >> Cheers, Louis >> >> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is >> UTC-3 >> - - - >> >> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing >>> the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing >>> processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>> >>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual >>> changes or major disagreements and gaps until >>> tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then >>> collect endorsements through out the day. >>> >>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday >>> night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So >>> Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. * >>> * >>> >>> thanks once again, >>> >>> joana >>> >>> *Letter from**International C**ivil >>> Society**Organizations****to President Dilma >>> Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >>> Session of the **UNGA * >>> >>> >>> Your Excellency, >>> >>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals >>> from around the world, committed to the development >>> of the Internetand its use for advancing social and >>> economic justice, would like to express our strong >>> support forthe statement delivered this week by your >>> Excellency at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations >>> General Assembly. We commend you for taking a >>> leading roleon these issuesand would like to: >>> >>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on >>> the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian >>> Internet Steering Committee/'/s//Principles for the >>> Governance and Use of the Internet. >>> >>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of >>> the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco >>> Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these >>> principles. >>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing >>> disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA >>> about the procedures of illegal interception of >>> information and data, framing it as a grave >>> violation of human rights and of civil liberties >>> >>> 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into >>> broader spheres of Internet Governance of >>> theexperiences from theBrazilian multistakeholder >>> model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which >>> comprises representatives from Government, >>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand >>> Civil Society on an equal footing. >>> >>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious >>> commitment to social justice and development, of >>> which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a >>> fundamental pillar. >>> >>> Signatories: >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 26 07:35:42 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:05:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: If the people drafting this letter and responsible for submitting it to President Rousseff are ok with the amended point 4, I am ok with it too. In the interest of time and so that Carlos can get some sleep I guess - let us go ahead with the version as it stands, unless there is something seriously wrong. The proposed change to #4 is, strictly speaking not necessary, but the suggested text that Joanna adopted is ok I guess. --srs (iPad) > On 26-Sep-2013, at 17:01, parminder wrote: > > > Jeremy > > > Joana's deadline for proposing amendments to the statement is not over yet, and the statement is changing right now.. > > Putting up an earlier version for sign on causes a great amount of confusion to the process... > > regards, parminder > > >> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:49 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> The link to endorse the statement is now up: >> >> http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ >> >> Even if you think you already endorsed it in this thread, it will be your responsibility now to add your name to this page. :-) Please also be sure to respond to the email confirmation (or let me know if you don't get it). >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 26 07:36:44 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:36:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> On 26/09/2013, at 7:31 AM, parminder wrote: > Joana's deadline for proposing amendments to the statement is not over yet, and the statement is changing right now.. > > Putting up an earlier version for sign on causes a great amount of confusion to the process... Sorry, I was acting on instructions to put it up early because consensus had already been reached, but then the thread suddenly reactivated and point 4 changed... anyway point 4 is now "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br", is that correct? -- 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 anriette at apc.org Thu Sep 26 07:37:44 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:37:44 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52441C88.8030709@apc.org> Dear Joana This is exactly what I had in mind when I proposed this letter. I am sorry I could not contribute to the drafting. We will circulate it to APC members for support. I am at the African IGF and traveling tonight so am copying our communications manager, Mallory Knodel, to ask her to do this as Valeria Betancourt our policy manager is also in transit. Could you please send her the final copy if there are changes? Thanks.. good letter. Anriette On 26/09/2013 03:44, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to > avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the > contributions. > > Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian > time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, > also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President > Dilma. * > * > > thanks once again, > > joana > > *Letter from**International C**ivil Society**Organizations****to > President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th > Session of the **UNGA * > > > Your Excellency, > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > world, committed to the development of the Internetand its use for > advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your Excellency > at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations General Assembly. We commend > you for taking a leading roleon these issuesand would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering > Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft > Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > upholds these principles. > > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and > demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal > interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation > of human rights and of civil liberties > > 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of theexperiences from theBrazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which > comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and > TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable > Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > Signatories: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > wrote: > > Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal > version. : ) > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. > --srs (htc one x) > > On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. >> >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter >> > wrote: >> >> >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer >> and at the same time worse. >> >> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than >> two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. >> >> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – >> the first paragraph >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> around the world, committed to the development of the >> Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would >> like to express our strong support for the statement >> delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th >> Session of the United Nations General Assembly. >> >> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and >> elaborate on it). >> >> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post >> Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t >> going to happen. >> >> Ian Peter >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 07:45:31 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:45:31 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with the endorsements, ok? Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow part about the process: 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it was conceived. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder wrote: > Joana > > I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned as bring > a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I understand that > this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. Marco > Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG scene, why > should bwe not mention it. > parminder > > > On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go: > > 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for > Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > > Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the world. > And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting point. But > it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with things. In > fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political power as > endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if this and for > wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part of marco civil is > already mentioned in previous paragraphs. > > We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is passing > by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the outreach. > > Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. > > Best. > > Joana > > > > > On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: > >> The text is fine as it is. >> >> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing point 4? >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >> >> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go >> for: >> >> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for >> Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>> >>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, >>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>> >>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be >>> extended to the world. >>> >>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>> >>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs >>> multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its >>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should >>> reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach >>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>> >>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this >>> middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit >>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? >>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>> >>> best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>> >>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>> Cheers, Louis >>>> >>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>>> - - - >>>> >>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to >>>>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>>>> >>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >>>>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). >>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>> >>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say >>>>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to >>>>> President Dilma. * >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> thanks once again, >>>>> >>>>> joana >>>>> >>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >>>>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >>>>> Session of the **UNGA * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>> >>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >>>>> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >>>>> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >>>>> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency >>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >>>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like >>>>> to: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >>>>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>>>> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal >>>>> interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of >>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>> >>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >>>>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >>>>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>> >>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >>>>> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable >>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>> >>>>> Signatories: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 07:47:13 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:47:13 -0400 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 Sent from my iPhone On Sep 26, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with the endorsements, ok? > > Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow part about the process: > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it was conceived. > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder wrote: >> Joana >> >> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned as bring a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I understand that this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG scene, why should bwe not mention it. >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go: >>> >>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the world. And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting point. But it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with things. In fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous paragraphs. >>> >>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is passing by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the outreach. >>> >>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> Joana >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >>>> The text is fine as it is. >>>> >>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing point 4? >>>> >>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go for: >>>>> >>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>>>> >>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be extended to the world. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>>>> >>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>>>>>> - - - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signatories: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 07:47:40 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:47:40 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Without comment, I support this initiative and endorsed the gait. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* * *Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/9/26 Louis Pouzin (well) > IMHO it would be better without parag 4. > Cheers, Louis > > btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 > - - - > > On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid >> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >> >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). >> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >> >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, >> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President >> Dilma. * >> * >> >> thanks once again, >> >> joana >> >> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >> Session of the **UNGA * >> >> >> Your Excellency, >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear >> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft >> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds >> these principles. >> >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding >> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of >> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and >> of civil liberties >> >> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is >> a fundamental pillar. >> >> Signatories: >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 26 07:55:21 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 04:55:21 -0700 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree... Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. > Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with the > endorsements, ok? > > Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow part > about the process: > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft > Bill > of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these > principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it > was conceived. > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> Joana >> >> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned as >> bring >> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I understand >> that >> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. Marco >> Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG scene, why >> should bwe not mention it. >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> Dear Parminder, >> >> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go: >> >> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for >> Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >> >> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the >> world. >> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting point. >> But >> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with things. >> In >> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political power as >> endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if this and for >> wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part of marco civil is >> already mentioned in previous paragraphs. >> >> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is >> passing >> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the outreach. >> >> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. >> >> Best. >> >> Joana >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> wrote: >> >>> The text is fine as it is. >>> >>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing point >>> 4? >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we >>> go >>> for: >>> >>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for >>> Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>> >>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the >>>> texto, >>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>> >>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be >>>> extended to the world. >>>> >>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>> >>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs >>>> multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though >>>> its >>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we >>>> should >>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder >>>> approach >>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>> >>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this >>>> middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to >>>> submit >>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) >>>> meaning? >>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>> >>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>>>> - - - >>>>> >>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to >>>>>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the >>>>>> contributions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >>>>>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian >>>>>> time). >>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say >>>>>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to >>>>>> President Dilma. * >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >>>>>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >>>>>> Session of the **UNGA * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>> >>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >>>>>> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >>>>>> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >>>>>> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >>>>>> Excellency >>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >>>>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like >>>>>> to: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >>>>>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* >>>>>> *Principles >>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>>>>> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way >>>>>> that >>>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >>>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal >>>>>> interception of information and data, framing it as a grave >>>>>> violation of >>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>> >>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>>>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >>>>>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >>>>>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and >>>>>> TechnologyCommunity, >>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>> >>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >>>>>> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and >>>>>> reliable >>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signatories: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Sep 26 08:07:22 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:07:22 -0400 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, Part of my concern wit this is that various episodes we have seen on this of the government ministers at certain points just deciding to run away with the process and change it to something that people in civil society and other sectors did not agree with and had little the could do to change that. I have not been convinced that this is a model to follow. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 07:45, Joana Varon wrote: > Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with the endorsements, ok? > > Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow part about the process: > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it was conceived. > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder wrote: > Joana > > I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned as bring a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I understand that this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG scene, why should bwe not mention it. > parminder > > > On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Dear Parminder, >> >> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go: >> >> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the world. And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting point. But it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with things. In fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous paragraphs. >> >> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is passing by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the outreach. >> >> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. >> >> Best. >> >> Joana >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: >> The text is fine as it is. >> >> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing point 4? >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go for: >>> >>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>> >>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>> >>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be extended to the world. >>> >>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>> >>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>> >>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>> >>> best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>> Cheers, Louis >>> >>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>> - - - >>> >>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>>> >>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>> >>>> Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. >>>> >>>> thanks once again, >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA >>>> >>>> >>>> Your Excellency, >>>> >>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: >>>> >>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>> >>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. >>>> >>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties >>>> >>>> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>> >>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>> >>>> Signatories: >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 08:17:05 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:17:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] NY Times Editorial: Close the N.S.A.'s Back Doors In-Reply-To: <033101ceba5a$2ceebef0$86cc3cd0$@gmail.com> References: <033101ceba5a$2ceebef0$86cc3cd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael I agree with the editorial because the "back door" enables every one every where to pry into the private info of every one every where. A back door is a back door and any wants who knows of its existence can use it. It is as simple as that, not to talk of professional hackers. That means the we shall hence forth have no privacies. Animals we shall become, not so? The US Congress ought to vote Rep. Rush Holt's bill and save us from a horrendous situation Imagine arm robbers monitoring the movement in one's bank account. Just easy to locate when a fat sum of money has been collected and hop: a hold up is organized. That is exactly what NSA is doing Aaron On 9/26/13, michael gurstein wrote: > Editorial > Close the N.S.A.'s Back Doors > By THE EDITORIAL BOARD > Published: September 21, 2013 > > In 2006, a federal agency, the National Institute of Standards and > Technology, helped build an international encryption system to help > countries and industries fend off computer hacking and theft. Unbeknown to > the many users of the system, a different government arm, the National > Security Agency, secretly inserted a "back door" into the system that > allowed federal spies to crack open any data that was encoded using its > technology. > > Documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, make > clear > that the agency has never met an encryption system that it has not tried to > penetrate. And it frequently tries to take the easy way out. Because modern > cryptography can be so hard to break, even using the brute force of the > agency's powerful supercomputers, the agency prefers to collaborate with > big > software companies and cipher authors, getting hidden access built right > into their systems. > > The New York Times, The Guardian and ProPublica recently reported that the > agency now has access to the codes that protect commerce and banking > systems, trade secrets and medical records, and everyone's e-mail and > Internet chat messages, including virtual private networks. In some cases, > the agency pressured companies to give it access; as The Guardian reported > earlier this year, Microsoft provided access to Hotmail, Outlook.com, > SkyDrive and Skype. According to some of the Snowden documents given to Der > Spiegel, the N.S.A. also has access to the encryption protecting data on > iPhones, Android and BlackBerry phones. > > These back doors and special access routes are a terrible idea, another > example of the intelligence community's overreach. Companies and > individuals > are increasingly putting their most confidential data on cloud storage > services, and need to rely on assurances their data will be secure. Knowing > that encryption has been deliberately weakened will undermine confidence in > these systems and interfere with commerce. > > The back doors also strip away the expectations of privacy that > individuals, > businesses and governments have in ordinary communications. If back doors > are built into systems by the N.S.A., who is to say that other countries' > spy agencies - or hackers, pirates and terrorists - won't discover and > exploit them? > > The government can get a warrant and break into the communications or data > of any individual or company suspected of breaking the law. But crippling > everyone's ability to use encryption is going too far, just as the N.S.A. > has exceeded its boundaries in collecting everyone's phone records rather > than limiting its focus to actual suspects. > > Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced a bill > that > would, among other provisions, bar the government from requiring software > makers to insert built-in ways to bypass encryption. It deserves full > Congressional support. In the meantime, several Internet companies, > including Google and Facebook, are building encryption systems that will be > much more difficult for the N.S.A. to penetrate, forced to assure their > customers that they are not a secret partner with the dark side of their > own > government. > > > -- Aaron Agien NYANGKWE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 08:18:56 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:18:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] [time sensitive] call for endorsements for a letter to president Dilma: support on her speach at UNGA Message-ID: Dear all, >From yesterday afternoon and through out the night, after several exchanges with some thematic lists on IG, we have managed to draft this short and direct statement to president Dilma in support of her speech at UNGA. We had/have a time constraint, as it is meant to be delivered personally to the president tomorrow morning by our dear Carlos Afonso. So I'm sorry if this is popping up in your inbox as something already closed for more comments. It is* now* *open for endorsements here:* http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga (Note that, to avoid spam, the platform will send you a confirmation email to you inbox. Please, do not forget to confirm so your name will show up in the endorsements list) I (and, I believe, everyone that kindly contributed in such a short period of time) fully encourage you/your organization to support it and spread the link as widely as possible. Having a diverse list of endorsers would be very important for helping Marco Civil to be approved and for straightening CGI.br political position in our national scenario, which also sets some interesting standards for internet policy procedures/principles worldwide. Our deadline for signatures for the version to be delivered tomorrow to the president is *today (Thursday, 26th) at 22:00 (Brazilian time). *The statement is also copied below. Thanks a lot for all the contributions and efforts in such a sort period of time. all the best joana -- Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it was conceived. 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance led by CGI.br. We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 08:20:03 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:20:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the text, as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. Greetings, Norbert parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > I agree... > > Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. > > > > Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with > > the endorsements, ok? > > > > Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow > > part about the process: > > > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > > Draft Bill > > of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds > > these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process > > in which it was conceived. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder > > wrote: > > > >> Joana > >> > >> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned > >> as bring > >> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I > >> understand that > >> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. > >> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG > >> scene, why should bwe not mention it. > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> > >> Dear Parminder, > >> > >> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we > >> could go: > >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model > >> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >> > >> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the > >> world. > >> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting > >> point. But > >> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with > >> things. In > >> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political > >> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if > >> this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part > >> of marco civil is already mentioned in previous paragraphs. > >> > >> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is > >> passing > >> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the > >> outreach. > >> > >> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. > >> > >> Best. > >> > >> Joana > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > >> wrote: > >> > >>> The text is fine as it is. > >>> > >>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing > >>> point 4? > >>> > >>> --srs (htc one x) > >>> > >>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: > >>> > >>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So > >>> could we go > >>> for: > >>> > >>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model > >>> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, > >>>> > >>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the > >>>> texto, > >>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: > >>>> > >>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should > >>>> be extended to the world. > >>>> > >>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. > >>>> > >>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of > >>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a > >>>> conclusion that though its > >>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, > >>>> we should > >>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a > >>>> multistakeholder approach > >>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. > >>>> > >>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach > >>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or > >>>> want to submit > >>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) > >>>> meaning? > >>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. > >>>> > >>>> best > >>>> > >>>> joana > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. > >>>>> Cheers, Louis > >>>>> > >>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 > >>>>> - - - > >>>>> > >>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad > >>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for > >>>>>> all the contributions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or > >>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am > >>>>>> (Brazilian time). > >>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say > >>>>>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand > >>>>>> to President Dilma. * > >>>>>> * > >>>>>> > >>>>>> thanks once again, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> joana > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** > >>>>>> **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at > >>>>>> **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your Excellency, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around > >>>>>> the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > >>>>>> its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like > >>>>>> to express our strong support for the statement delivered this > >>>>>> week by your Excellency > >>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We > >>>>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and > >>>>>> would like to: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the > >>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet > >>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles > >>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the > >>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da > >>>>>> Internet) in a way that > >>>>>> upholds these principles. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and > >>>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of > >>>>>> illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a > >>>>>> grave violation of > >>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader > >>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the > >>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led > >>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, > >>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, > >>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment > >>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, > >>>>>> and reliable > >>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signatories: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>> @joana_varon > >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>> @joana_varon > >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 08:30:50 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:30:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi, Re[sectifully disagree. We went through months of messages in various list of how the process for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI behind. Until this letter, everything I was hearing from Brazilians was how bad Marco Civil was. Now we have a situation where several countries have joined the list of countries gone rouge and civil society is willing to go back to government run models. I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had supported it before the change. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at > what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! > > I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to > have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the text, > as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > >> I agree... >> >> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. >> >> >>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with >>> the endorsements, ok? >>> >>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow >>> part about the process: >>> >>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>> Draft Bill >>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds >>> these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process >>> in which it was conceived. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Joana >>>> >>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned >>>> as bring >>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I >>>> understand that >>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. >>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG >>>> scene, why should bwe not mention it. >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> >>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we >>>> could go: >>>> >>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model >>>> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>> >>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the >>>> world. >>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting >>>> point. But >>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with >>>> things. In >>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political >>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if >>>> this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part >>>> of marco civil is already mentioned in previous paragraphs. >>>> >>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is >>>> passing >>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the >>>> outreach. >>>> >>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. >>>> >>>> Best. >>>> >>>> Joana >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The text is fine as it is. >>>>> >>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing >>>>> point 4? >>>>> >>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>> >>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So >>>>> could we go >>>>> for: >>>>> >>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model >>>>> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>>>> >>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the >>>>>> texto, >>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should >>>>>> be extended to the world. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of >>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a >>>>>> conclusion that though its >>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, >>>>>> we should >>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a >>>>>> multistakeholder approach >>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>>>> >>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach >>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or >>>>>> want to submit >>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) >>>>>> meaning? >>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>>>>>> - - - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad >>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for >>>>>>>> all the contributions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or >>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am >>>>>>>> (Brazilian time). >>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say >>>>>>>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand >>>>>>>> to President Dilma. * >>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** >>>>>>>> **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at >>>>>>>> **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around >>>>>>>> the world, committed to the development of the Internet and >>>>>>>> its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like >>>>>>>> to express our strong support for the statement delivered this >>>>>>>> week by your Excellency >>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >>>>>>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and >>>>>>>> would like to: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet >>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the >>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da >>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that >>>>>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >>>>>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of >>>>>>>> illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a >>>>>>>> grave violation of >>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the >>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led >>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, >>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment >>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, >>>>>>>> and reliable >>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signatories: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 08:37:53 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:37:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> Hi Avri, I think your conclusion about what we (Brazilians) say/think is not totally correct. The issue around Marco Civil is much more complex. It does have really good text and principles. There are some contentious issues, including ISP liability, NN and data retention and mirroring, but still is a exemplary bill and process. I would be happy to chat with you by Skype and go over all such issues and map how the actors are around these are in Brazil. Best, Carolina Sent from my iPhone On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Re[sectifully disagree. > > We went through months of messages in various list of how the process for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI behind. Until this letter, everything I was hearing from Brazilians was how bad Marco Civil was. Now we have a situation where several countries have joined the list of countries gone rouge and civil society is willing to go back to government run models. > > I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had supported it before the change. > > avri > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at >> what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! >> >> I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to >> have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the text, >> as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> parminder at itforchange.net wrote: >> >>> I agree... >>> >>> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. >>> >>> >>>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with >>>> the endorsements, ok? >>>> >>>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow >>>> part about the process: >>>> >>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>>> Draft Bill >>>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds >>>> these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process >>>> in which it was conceived. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Joana >>>>> >>>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned >>>>> as bring >>>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I >>>>> understand that >>>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. >>>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG >>>>> scene, why should bwe not mention it. >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we >>>>> could go: >>>>> >>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model >>>>> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>> >>>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the >>>>> world. >>>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting >>>>> point. But >>>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with >>>>> things. In >>>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political >>>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if >>>>> this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part >>>>> of marco civil is already mentioned in previous paragraphs. >>>>> >>>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is >>>>> passing >>>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the >>>>> outreach. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. >>>>> >>>>> Best. >>>>> >>>>> Joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The text is fine as it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing >>>>>> point 4? >>>>>> >>>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So >>>>>> could we go >>>>>> for: >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model >>>>>> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the >>>>>>> texto, >>>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should >>>>>>> be extended to the world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of >>>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a >>>>>>> conclusion that though its >>>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, >>>>>>> we should >>>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a >>>>>>> multistakeholder approach >>>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach >>>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or >>>>>>> want to submit >>>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) >>>>>>> meaning? >>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>>>>>>> - - - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad >>>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for >>>>>>>>> all the contributions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or >>>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am >>>>>>>>> (Brazilian time). >>>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say >>>>>>>>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand >>>>>>>>> to President Dilma. * >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** >>>>>>>>> **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at >>>>>>>>> **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around >>>>>>>>> the world, committed to the development of the Internet and >>>>>>>>> its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like >>>>>>>>> to express our strong support for the statement delivered this >>>>>>>>> week by your Excellency >>>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >>>>>>>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and >>>>>>>>> would like to: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >>>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet >>>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the >>>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da >>>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that >>>>>>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >>>>>>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of >>>>>>>>> illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a >>>>>>>>> grave violation of >>>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >>>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the >>>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led >>>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, >>>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment >>>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, >>>>>>>>> and reliable >>>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signatories: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 08:39:37 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:39:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: call for endorsements for a letter to president Dilma: support on her speach at UNGA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130926143937.4607f454@swan.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] In view of a very significant consensus process already having taken place on (among other mailing lists) the IGC mailing list, the IGC will be considered to be endorsing this letter by consensus unless a timely objection against this is raised. I hereby set TODAY 21.00 BRT (Brasília time), that is midnight UTC, as deadline for any such objections. Greetings, Norbert Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > >From yesterday afternoon and through out the night, after several > >exchanges > with some thematic lists on IG, we have managed to draft this short > and direct statement to president Dilma in support of her speech at > UNGA. > > We had/have a time constraint, as it is meant to be delivered > personally to the president tomorrow morning by our dear Carlos > Afonso. So I'm sorry if this is popping up in your inbox as something > already closed for more comments. > > It is* now* *open for endorsements here:* > http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga > > (Note that, to avoid spam, the platform will send you a confirmation > email to you inbox. Please, do not forget to confirm so your name > will show up in the endorsements list) > > I (and, I believe, everyone that kindly contributed in such a short > period of time) fully encourage you/your organization to support it > and spread the link as widely as possible. Having a diverse list of > endorsers would be very important for helping Marco Civil to be > approved and for straightening CGI.br political position in our > national scenario, which also sets some interesting standards for > internet policy procedures/principles worldwide. > > Our deadline for signatures for the version to be delivered tomorrow > to the president is *today (Thursday, 26th) at 22:00 (Brazilian > time). *The statement is also copied below. > > Thanks a lot for all the contributions and efforts in such a sort > period of time. > > all the best > > joana > Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it was conceived. 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance led by CGI.br. We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 26 08:41:13 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:41:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52442B69.8060408@cafonso.ca> Hi, today Rio's "O Globo", one of the three main conservative opposition newspapers (which form part of what we use to call "the party of the pro-coup press", or PIG for its initials in Portuguese) brings a strong editorial in favor of Dilma's speech at the UN, emphasizing its support in favor of net neutrality as presented by Rousseff, as well as in favor of bringing the discussion of an international framework of Internet rights to every multilateral fora. The newspaper is part of the powerful vertical concern called "Globo Outfit" (Organizações Globo) which controls the main TV and radio networks and even part of film production in Brazil, a near-monopoly à la Murdoch. So, this coming from the conservative press puts strong additional pressure in favor of this crucial component of Marco Civil. It is relevant to note that Globo, which once owned the largest cable TV network in the country, knwon simply as "Net", has recently sold control of this service to Carlos Slim's Claro of Mexico -- so this might explain its explicit position, as a content provider, in favor of net neutrality now, as Net is a leading broadband provider in the main cities. "O Estado de São Paulo", another member of the PIG, has also been for a while defending our vision of the MC in editorials as well. The transnational oligopoly of telecommunications companies here (Claro Mexico, Telefónica de España, Telecom Italia, Oi/Portugal Telcom, and GVT/Vivendi) seems quite isolated now on its insistence in inserting violations of net neutrality in the MC. But we cannot underestimate its lobbying power in Congress. Interestingly enough, the president agrees with us on removing an MC paragraph which might lead to takedown of content without due legal process if someone argues it might violate intellectual property rights, thus in practice imposing on service providers a sort of arbitrary IP police power. This was inserted in the MC by big media lobbyists, by the way. Interestingly rough times here, folks :) abraços fraternos --c.a. On 09/25/2013 11:04 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Agreed as well, Joana. Another information that may be important is that > Dilma mentioned today that she does not believe that the UN should be > involved in all Internet governance issues.The UN should be responsible for > making sure that the Internet is not militarized. Diego just mentioned that > he heard something along this lines in an interview over the radio and I > thought it was a relevant. > > I take the opportunity to invite you to a debate being co-organized by the > Center for Technology and Society of FGV and DiploFoundation about the role > of Brazil in the IG regime. Diego and I will be sharing a few thoughts on > issues such as impact of the NSA revelations to Brazil-US relations, to the > national regulatory/technical landscape and to Brazil's positions on global > IG. There will be opportunity for comments and questions. It will be > tomorrow (Thursday) at 13:00 GMT. > http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/webinar-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy > > Best wishes > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 26 08:44:27 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:44:27 -0300 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca> I agree! I think we will be able to deliver the letter to the prez on Friday. This will be a fantastic milestone on our part. Let's go and sign it, folks! fraternal regards --c.a. On 09/25/2013 11:15 PM, Veridiana Alimonti wrote: > Dear Joana and all, > > the letter is concise, pointing important issues without losing the general > line of support. Very good! > > > > 2013/9/25 Joana Varon > >> Dear all, >> >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid >> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >> >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). >> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >> >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, >> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President >> Dilma. * >> * >> >> thanks once again, >> >> joana >> >> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >> Session of the **UNGA * >> >> >> Your Excellency, >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear >> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft >> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds >> these principles. >> >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding >> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of >> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and >> of civil liberties >> >> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is >> a fundamental pillar. >> >> Signatories: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < >> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. >>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>> >>>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. >>>> >>>> Louis >>>> - - - >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same >>>>> time worse. >>>>> >>>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs >>>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre. >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >>>>> paragraph >>>>> >>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >>>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the >>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of >>>>> the United Nations General Assembly. >>>>> >>>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read >>>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). >>>>> >>>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand >>>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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) >>> -- >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 08:46:01 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca> References: <52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Sign . +1 2013/9/26 Carlos A. Afonso > I agree! I think we will be able to deliver the letter to the prez on > Friday. This will be a fantastic milestone on our part. > > Let's go and sign it, folks! > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 09/25/2013 11:15 PM, Veridiana Alimonti wrote: > > Dear Joana and all, > > > > the letter is concise, pointing important issues without losing the > general > > line of support. Very good! > > > > > > > > 2013/9/25 Joana Varon > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to > avoid > >> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. > >> > >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > >> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian > time). > >> Then collect endorsements through out the day. > >> > >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, > >> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President > >> Dilma. * > >> * > >> > >> thanks once again, > >> > >> joana > >> > >> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to > >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th > >> Session of the **UNGA * > >> > >> > >> Your Excellency, > >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > >> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > >> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support > forthe statement delivered this week by your > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. > We > >> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: > >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > clear > >> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* > *Principles > >> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft > >> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds > >> these principles. > >> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding > >> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception > of > >> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights > and > >> of civil liberties > >> > >> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and > TechnologyCommunity, > >> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable > Internet is > >> a fundamental pillar. > >> > >> Signatories: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > >> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. > : ) > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > >>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. > >>>> --srs (htc one x) > >>>> > >>>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. > >>>> > >>>> Louis > >>>> - - - > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter >wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > same > >>>>> time worse. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two > paragraphs > >>>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre. > >>>>> > >>>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > >>>>> paragraph > >>>>> > >>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > world, > >>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > advancing > >>>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the > >>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session > of > >>>>> the United Nations General Assembly. > >>>>> > >>>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read > >>>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). > >>>>> > >>>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and > demand > >>>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ian Peter > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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) > >>> -- > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> @joana_varon > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >> > >> > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Sep 26 08:47:01 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:47:01 +0300 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20130926124701.GE4900@thorion.it.jyu.fi> +1 On Sep 26 07:46, Antonio Medina Gómez (amedinagomez at gmail.com) wrote: > Sign . +1 > > > 2013/9/26 Carlos A. Afonso > > > I agree! I think we will be able to deliver the letter to the prez on > > Friday. This will be a fantastic milestone on our part. > > > > Let's go and sign it, folks! > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 09/25/2013 11:15 PM, Veridiana Alimonti wrote: > > > Dear Joana and all, > > > > > > the letter is concise, pointing important issues without losing the > > general > > > line of support. Very good! > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/9/25 Joana Varon > > > > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to > > avoid > > >> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. > > >> > > >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > > >> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian > > time). > > >> Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > >> > > >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, > > >> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President > > >> Dilma. * > > >> * > > >> > > >> thanks once again, > > >> > > >> joana > > >> > > >> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to > > >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th > > >> Session of the **UNGA * > > >> > > >> > > >> Your Excellency, > > >> > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > > >> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > > >> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support > > forthe statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. > > We > > >> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: > > >> > > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > > clear > > >> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* > > *Principles > > >> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > >> > > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft > > >> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds > > >> these principles. > > >> > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding > > >> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception > > of > > >> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights > > and > > >> of civil liberties > > >> > > >> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and > > TechnologyCommunity, > > >> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > >> > > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > > >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable > > Internet is > > >> a fundamental pillar. > > >> > > >> Signatories: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > > >> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. > > : ) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > > >>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. > > >>>> --srs (htc one x) > > >>>> > > >>>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. > > >>>> > > >>>> Louis > > >>>> - - - > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter > >wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > > same > > >>>>> time worse. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two > > paragraphs > > >>>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > > >>>>> paragraph > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > > world, > > >>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > > advancing > > >>>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the > > >>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session > > of > > >>>>> the United Nations General Assembly. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read > > >>>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and > > demand > > >>>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Ian Peter > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>>> > > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>>> > > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> 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) > > >>> -- > > >>> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>> > > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>> > > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >> @joana_varon > > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 08:47:17 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:47:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] OBJECTION ACK Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130926144717.5b583dce@swan.bollow.ch> [With IGC coordinator hat on] Since Avri is objecting, we now don't have consensus. Since we don't have time for a rough consensus call (which according to the charter requires at least 48 hours) this means that unless Avri withdraws her objection, IGC won't endorse the letter. Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:37:53 -0400 schrieb Carolina : > Hi Avri, > I think your conclusion about what we (Brazilians) say/think is not > totally correct. The issue around Marco Civil is much more complex. > It does have really good text and principles. There are some > contentious issues, including ISP liability, NN and data retention > and mirroring, but still is a exemplary bill and process. I would be > happy to chat with you by Skype and go over all such issues and map > how the actors are around these are in Brazil. Best, Carolina > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Re[sectifully disagree. > > > > We went through months of messages in various list of how the > > process for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI > > behind. Until this letter, everything I was hearing from > > Brazilians was how bad Marco Civil was. Now we have a situation > > where several countries have joined the list of countries gone > > rouge and civil society is willing to go back to government run > > models. > > > > I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had > > supported it before the change. > > > > avri > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >> > >> If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at > >> what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! > >> > >> I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to > >> have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the > >> text, as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > >> > >>> I agree... > >>> > >>> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed > >>>> with the endorsements, ok? > >>>> > >>>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this > >>>> yellow part about the process: > >>>> > >>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > >>>> Draft Bill > >>>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > >>>> upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and > >>>> democratic process in which it was conceived. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Joana > >>>>> > >>>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be > >>>>> mentioned as bring > >>>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I > >>>>> understand that > >>>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. > >>>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian > >>>>> IG scene, why should bwe not mention it. > >>>>> parminder > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear Parminder, > >>>>> > >>>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we > >>>>> could go: > >>>>> > >>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder > >>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >>>>> > >>>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to > >>>>> the world. > >>>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting > >>>>> point. But > >>>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with > >>>>> things. In > >>>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political > >>>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose > >>>>> if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? > >>>>> The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous > >>>>> paragraphs. > >>>>> > >>>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time > >>>>> is passing > >>>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the > >>>>> outreach. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and > >>>>> insights. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best. > >>>>> > >>>>> Joana > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> The text is fine as it is. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing > >>>>>> point 4? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --srs (htc one x) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So > >>>>>> could we go > >>>>>> for: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder > >>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with > >>>>>>> the texto, > >>>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model > >>>>>>> should be extended to the world. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of > >>>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to > >>>>>>> a conclusion that though its > >>>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's > >>>>>>> speech, we should > >>>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a > >>>>>>> multistakeholder approach > >>>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach > >>>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version > >>>>>>> or want to submit > >>>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) > >>>>>>> meaning? > >>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> best > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. > >>>>>>>> Cheers, Louis > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is > >>>>>>>> UTC-3 > >>>>>>>> - - - > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad > >>>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for > >>>>>>>>> all the contributions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or > >>>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 > >>>>>>>>> am (Brazilian time). > >>>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's > >>>>>>>>> say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it > >>>>>>>>> in hand to President Dilma. * > >>>>>>>>> * > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> thanks once again, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** > >>>>>>>>> Organizations** **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of > >>>>>>>>> her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > >>>>>>>>> around the world, committed to the development of the > >>>>>>>>> Internet and its use for advancing social and economic > >>>>>>>>> justice, would like to express our strong support for the > >>>>>>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency > >>>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. > >>>>>>>>> We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and > >>>>>>>>> would like to: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the > >>>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet > >>>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles > >>>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the > >>>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da > >>>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that > >>>>>>>>> upholds these principles. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval > >>>>>>>>> and demanding explanations from the USA about the > >>>>>>>>> procedures of illegal interception of information and > >>>>>>>>> data, framing it as a grave violation of > >>>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader > >>>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the > >>>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led > >>>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, > >>>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, > >>>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment > >>>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, > >>>>>>>>> and reliable > >>>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Signatories: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>> @joana_varon > >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Sep 26 08:57:27 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:27:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. Thanks for your understanding. Best, Anja On Sep 26, 2013 5:07 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > On 26/09/2013, at 7:31 AM, parminder wrote: > > Joana's deadline for proposing amendments to the statement is not over > yet, and the statement is changing right now.. > > Putting up an earlier version for sign on causes a great amount of > confusion to the process... > > > Sorry, I was acting on instructions to put it up early because consensus > had already been reached, but then the thread suddenly reactivated and > point 4 changed... anyway point 4 is now "Reinforce our support for the > Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br", > is that correct? > > -- > > *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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 26 08:59:11 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:59:11 -0300 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52442F9F.1020504@cafonso.ca> Hmmm... the deadline is tonight, but I've just got my plane ticket to Brasilia and should leave for the airport by 08:30 AM BR time tomorrow (Friday) morning, so we still have a few more hours time -- I just need time to print it and put the doc in a nice envelope, it would not be good ritual practice to give the prez a memory stick :) fraternal regards --c.a. On 09/26/2013 08:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with the > endorsements, ok? > > Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow part > about the process: > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill > of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these > principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it > was conceived. > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Joana >> >> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned as bring >> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I understand that >> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. Marco >> Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG scene, why >> should bwe not mention it. >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> Dear Parminder, >> >> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go: >> >> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for >> Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >> >> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the world. >> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting point. But >> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with things. In >> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political power as >> endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if this and for >> wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part of marco civil is >> already mentioned in previous paragraphs. >> >> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is passing >> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the outreach. >> >> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. >> >> Best. >> >> Joana >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> wrote: >> >>> The text is fine as it is. >>> >>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing point 4? >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go >>> for: >>> >>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for >>> Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>> >>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, >>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>> >>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be >>>> extended to the world. >>>> >>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>> >>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs >>>> multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its >>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should >>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach >>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>> >>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this >>>> middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit >>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? >>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>>> >>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>> >>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>>>> - - - >>>>> >>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to >>>>>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >>>>>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). >>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say >>>>>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to >>>>>> President Dilma. * >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >>>>>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >>>>>> Session of the **UNGA * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>> >>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >>>>>> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >>>>>> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >>>>>> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency >>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >>>>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like >>>>>> to: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >>>>>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>>>>> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >>>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >>>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal >>>>>> interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of >>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>> >>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>>>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >>>>>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >>>>>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>> >>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >>>>>> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable >>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signatories: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 26 09:01:43 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:01:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"? Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with the old formulation or the new one. -- 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 genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 09:03:31 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:03:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: This looks like a wise compromise that takes nothing away from the thrust of the letter On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 > but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the > shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian > context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed > earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for > Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to > the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support > this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. > > > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our > support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance * > as* led *in Brazil* by CGI.br "? > > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with > the old formulation or the new one. > > -- > > *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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Sep 26 09:03:43 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:33:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: My apologies, I am following this on my phone and got a little lost in the emails. I think the final text for para 4 was proposed by Joana, not Parminder - sorry for getting that wrong. My concerns remain the same, however. Best, Anja On Sep 26, 2013 6:27 PM, "Anja Kovacs" wrote: > Dear all, > > I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 > but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the > shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian > context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed > earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for > Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to > the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support > this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. > > Thanks for your understanding. > > Best, > Anja > On Sep 26, 2013 5:07 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > >> On 26/09/2013, at 7:31 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Joana's deadline for proposing amendments to the statement is not over >> yet, and the statement is changing right now.. >> >> Putting up an earlier version for sign on causes a great amount of >> confusion to the process... >> >> >> Sorry, I was acting on instructions to put it up early because consensus >> had already been reached, but then the thread suddenly reactivated and >> point 4 changed... anyway point 4 is now "Reinforce our support for the >> Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br", >> is that correct? >> >> -- >> >> *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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 09:03:51 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <52442F9F.1020504@cafonso.ca> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <52442F9F.1020504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I agree with this language and we should close the letter. I think the item on CGI lost some of its nice English, but stills says what it should say We will work now on letter translations. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:59 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Hmmm... the deadline is tonight, but I've just got my plane ticket to > Brasilia and should leave for the airport by 08:30 AM BR time tomorrow > (Friday) morning, so we still have a few more hours time -- I just need > time to print it and put the doc in a nice envelope, it would not be > good ritual practice to give the prez a memory stick :) > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 09/26/2013 08:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with the >> endorsements, ok? >> >> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow part >> about the process: >> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill >> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these >> principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it >> was conceived. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> Joana >>> >>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned as bring >>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I understand that >>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. Marco >>> Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG scene, why >>> should bwe not mention it. >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go: >>> >>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for >>> Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>> >>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the world. >>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting point. But >>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with things. In >>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political power as >>> endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if this and for >>> wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part of marco civil is >>> already mentioned in previous paragraphs. >>> >>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is passing >>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the outreach. >>> >>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> Joana >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The text is fine as it is. >>>> >>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing point 4? >>>> >>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>> >>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go >>>> for: >>>> >>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for >>>> Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, >>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>>> >>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be >>>>> extended to the world. >>>>> >>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>>> >>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs >>>>> multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its >>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should >>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach >>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>>> >>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this >>>>> middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit >>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? >>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>>> >>>>> best >>>>> >>>>> joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>>> >>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>>>>> - - - >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to >>>>>>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >>>>>>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). >>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say >>>>>>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to >>>>>>> President Dilma. * >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >>>>>>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >>>>>>> Session of the **UNGA * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >>>>>>> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >>>>>>> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >>>>>>> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency >>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >>>>>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like >>>>>>> to: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >>>>>>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>>>>>> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >>>>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >>>>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal >>>>>>> interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of >>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>>>>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >>>>>>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >>>>>>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >>>>>>> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable >>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signatories: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 09:04:48 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:04:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: OBJECTION ACK Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <20130926144717.5b583dce@swan.bollow.ch> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> <20130926144717.5b583dce@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <16932AFC-17CF-4487-8E72-1F080C6B3593@acm.org> Hi, I am sorry. I was satisfied with the previous version and was happy we had something supportable until the last minute changes But after hearing for months, on this list and elsewhere, about how the Marco Civil had been hijacked by the government and altered, even if it started as a multistakeholder process, I do not beleive we should endorse that process. So while I favored the supporting language, I do not accept anything that can show that Civil society is fine with Government driven processes that can be hijacked by the government. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > Since Avri is objecting, we now don't have consensus. > > Since we don't have time for a rough consensus call (which according to > the charter requires at least 48 hours) this means that unless Avri > withdraws her objection, IGC won't endorse the letter. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:37:53 -0400 > schrieb Carolina : > >> Hi Avri, >> I think your conclusion about what we (Brazilians) say/think is not >> totally correct. The issue around Marco Civil is much more complex. >> It does have really good text and principles. There are some >> contentious issues, including ISP liability, NN and data retention >> and mirroring, but still is a exemplary bill and process. I would be >> happy to chat with you by Skype and go over all such issues and map >> how the actors are around these are in Brazil. Best, Carolina >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Re[sectifully disagree. >>> >>> We went through months of messages in various list of how the >>> process for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI >>> behind. Until this letter, everything I was hearing from >>> Brazilians was how bad Marco Civil was. Now we have a situation >>> where several countries have joined the list of countries gone >>> rouge and civil society is willing to go back to government run >>> models. >>> >>> I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had >>> supported it before the change. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>> >>>> If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at >>>> what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! >>>> >>>> I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to >>>> have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the >>>> text, as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> parminder at itforchange.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree... >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed >>>>>> with the endorsements, ok? >>>>>> >>>>>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this >>>>>> yellow part about the process: >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>>>>> Draft Bill >>>>>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >>>>>> upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and >>>>>> democratic process in which it was conceived. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be >>>>>>> mentioned as bring >>>>>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I >>>>>>> understand that >>>>>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. >>>>>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian >>>>>>> IG scene, why should bwe not mention it. >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Parminder, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we >>>>>>> could go: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder >>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to >>>>>>> the world. >>>>>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting >>>>>>> point. But >>>>>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with >>>>>>> things. In >>>>>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political >>>>>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose >>>>>>> if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? >>>>>>> The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous >>>>>>> paragraphs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time >>>>>>> is passing >>>>>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the >>>>>>> outreach. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and >>>>>>> insights. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The text is fine as it is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing >>>>>>>> point 4? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So >>>>>>>> could we go >>>>>>>> for: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder >>>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with >>>>>>>>> the texto, >>>>>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model >>>>>>>>> should be extended to the world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of >>>>>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to >>>>>>>>> a conclusion that though its >>>>>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's >>>>>>>>> speech, we should >>>>>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a >>>>>>>>> multistakeholder approach >>>>>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach >>>>>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version >>>>>>>>> or want to submit >>>>>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) >>>>>>>>> meaning? >>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is >>>>>>>>>> UTC-3 >>>>>>>>>> - - - >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad >>>>>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>> all the contributions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or >>>>>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 >>>>>>>>>>> am (Brazilian time). >>>>>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's >>>>>>>>>>> say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it >>>>>>>>>>> in hand to President Dilma. * >>>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** >>>>>>>>>>> Organizations** **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of >>>>>>>>>>> her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >>>>>>>>>>> around the world, committed to the development of the >>>>>>>>>>> Internet and its use for advancing social and economic >>>>>>>>>>> justice, would like to express our strong support for the >>>>>>>>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency >>>>>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. >>>>>>>>>>> We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and >>>>>>>>>>> would like to: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >>>>>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet >>>>>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>>>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the >>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da >>>>>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that >>>>>>>>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval >>>>>>>>>>> and demanding explanations from the USA about the >>>>>>>>>>> procedures of illegal interception of information and >>>>>>>>>>> data, framing it as a grave violation of >>>>>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >>>>>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the >>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led >>>>>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, >>>>>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>>>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment >>>>>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, >>>>>>>>>>> and reliable >>>>>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Signatories: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Sep 26 09:08:44 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:08:44 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 26 09:11:29 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:41:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <3485C7BF-F06E-48CA-AA65-040778AC8E7E@hserus.net> This is a much more acceptable compromise text for point #4. Please go ahead. --srs (iPad) > On 26-Sep-2013, at 18:33, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > > This looks like a wise compromise that takes nothing away from the thrust of the letter > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. >>> >> >> Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"? >> >> Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with the old formulation or the new one. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Sep 26 09:12:04 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:42:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks for your efforts, Jeremy, but our concern is with the absence of a reference to multistakeholderism at the global level, and that remains. Anja On Sep 26, 2013 6:32 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 > but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the > shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian > context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed > earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for > Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to > the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support > this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. > > > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our > support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance * > as* led *in Brazil* by CGI.br "? > > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with > the old formulation or the new one. > > -- > > *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 genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 09:16:20 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:16:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: OBJECTION ACK Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <16932AFC-17CF-4487-8E72-1F080C6B3593@acm.org> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> <20130926144717.5b583dce@swan.bollow.ch> <16932AFC-17CF-4487-8E72-1F080C6B3593@acm.org> Message-ID: I must leave it to the Brazilians to explain how their process actually worked or did not work. But I must just say this about our never-explicitly-defined term "multistakeholderism": In my 30 years of experience trying to pass or stop legislation in a generally "democratic" set of processes in the U.S., I have always found the process to be messy, excessively influenced by those with money and undue power, and manipulated for political purpose by whatever powers can assert themselves. It is a dirty process, often described as "making sausage." If that is what the Brazilians have been complaining about until now, it is no different than what happens in most so-called democracies, and I find it hard to reject that process as not adequately within the general aspiration for an open multistakeholder policy debate. Ultimately, in the world we live in, it the governments that make the decisions. The question for me is whether the process has been open and transparent enough to be viewed as progress compared to more autocratic decisionmaking structure. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am sorry. > > I was satisfied with the previous version and was happy we had something > supportable until the last minute changes > > But after hearing for months, on this list and elsewhere, about how the > Marco Civil had been hijacked by the government and altered, even if it > started as a multistakeholder process, I do not beleive we should endorse > that process. > > So while I favored the supporting language, I do not accept anything that > can show that Civil society is fine with Government driven processes that > can be hijacked by the government. > > > avri > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Since Avri is objecting, we now don't have consensus. > > > > Since we don't have time for a rough consensus call (which according to > > the charter requires at least 48 hours) this means that unless Avri > > withdraws her objection, IGC won't endorse the letter. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:37:53 -0400 > > schrieb Carolina : > > > >> Hi Avri, > >> I think your conclusion about what we (Brazilians) say/think is not > >> totally correct. The issue around Marco Civil is much more complex. > >> It does have really good text and principles. There are some > >> contentious issues, including ISP liability, NN and data retention > >> and mirroring, but still is a exemplary bill and process. I would be > >> happy to chat with you by Skype and go over all such issues and map > >> how the actors are around these are in Brazil. Best, Carolina > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Re[sectifully disagree. > >>> > >>> We went through months of messages in various list of how the > >>> process for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI > >>> behind. Until this letter, everything I was hearing from > >>> Brazilians was how bad Marco Civil was. Now we have a situation > >>> where several countries have joined the list of countries gone > >>> rouge and civil society is willing to go back to government run > >>> models. > >>> > >>> I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had > >>> supported it before the change. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>> > >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>>> > >>>> If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at > >>>> what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to > >>>> have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the > >>>> text, as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. > >>>> > >>>> Greetings, > >>>> Norbert > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I agree... > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed > >>>>>> with the endorsements, ok? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this > >>>>>> yellow part about the process: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > >>>>>> Draft Bill > >>>>>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > >>>>>> upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and > >>>>>> democratic process in which it was conceived. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be > >>>>>>> mentioned as bring > >>>>>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I > >>>>>>> understand that > >>>>>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. > >>>>>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian > >>>>>>> IG scene, why should bwe not mention it. > >>>>>>> parminder > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dear Parminder, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we > >>>>>>> could go: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder > >>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to > >>>>>>> the world. > >>>>>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting > >>>>>>> point. But > >>>>>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with > >>>>>>> things. In > >>>>>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political > >>>>>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose > >>>>>>> if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? > >>>>>>> The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous > >>>>>>> paragraphs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time > >>>>>>> is passing > >>>>>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the > >>>>>>> outreach. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and > >>>>>>> insights. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The text is fine as it is. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing > >>>>>>>> point 4? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --srs (htc one x) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So > >>>>>>>> could we go > >>>>>>>> for: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder > >>>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with > >>>>>>>>> the texto, > >>>>>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model > >>>>>>>>> should be extended to the world. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of > >>>>>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to > >>>>>>>>> a conclusion that though its > >>>>>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's > >>>>>>>>> speech, we should > >>>>>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a > >>>>>>>>> multistakeholder approach > >>>>>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach > >>>>>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version > >>>>>>>>> or want to submit > >>>>>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) > >>>>>>>>> meaning? > >>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> best > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, Louis > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is > >>>>>>>>>> UTC-3 > >>>>>>>>>> - - - > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad > >>>>>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for > >>>>>>>>>>> all the contributions. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or > >>>>>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 > >>>>>>>>>>> am (Brazilian time). > >>>>>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's > >>>>>>>>>>> say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it > >>>>>>>>>>> in hand to President Dilma. * > >>>>>>>>>>> * > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> thanks once again, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** > >>>>>>>>>>> Organizations** **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of > >>>>>>>>>>> her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > >>>>>>>>>>> around the world, committed to the development of the > >>>>>>>>>>> Internet and its use for advancing social and economic > >>>>>>>>>>> justice, would like to express our strong support for the > >>>>>>>>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency > >>>>>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. > >>>>>>>>>>> We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and > >>>>>>>>>>> would like to: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the > >>>>>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet > >>>>>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles > >>>>>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the > >>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da > >>>>>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that > >>>>>>>>>>> upholds these principles. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval > >>>>>>>>>>> and demanding explanations from the USA about the > >>>>>>>>>>> procedures of illegal interception of information and > >>>>>>>>>>> data, framing it as a grave violation of > >>>>>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader > >>>>>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the > >>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led > >>>>>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, > >>>>>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, > >>>>>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment > >>>>>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, > >>>>>>>>>>> and reliable > >>>>>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Signatories: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 26 09:19:43 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:19:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: OBJECTION ACK Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <16932AFC-17CF-4487-8E72-1F080C6B3593@acm.org> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> <20130926144717.5b583dce@swan.bollow.ch> <16932AFC-17CF-4487-8E72-1F080C6B3593@acm.org> Message-ID: <5244346F.2020402@cafonso.ca> Dear Avri, the MC has not been "hijacked by the government". It remains so far the same proposal civil society here endorsed when it was finally introduced to Congress after two years of public discussion. Like in any representative democracy, the process through Congress will be painful, and I think the letter tries to make clear that we are defending the MC version which retains the values expressed in the letter. We might lose the battle, but there is no hijacking, and the tide seems to be turning in our favor. I cannot tell you how hard was our effort to get through the usual barriers to reach the president. And the result was in our view formidable -- we cannot lose momentum now. The MC is now going through a fast-track process and must be approved in less than three months -- we must make sure that what is approved is as close as possible to the original proposal. So, this support is very relevant to strengthen our advocacy here at this moment. fraternal regards --c.a. On 09/26/2013 10:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am sorry. > > I was satisfied with the previous version and was happy we had something supportable until the last minute changes > > But after hearing for months, on this list and elsewhere, about how the Marco Civil had been hijacked by the government and altered, even if it started as a multistakeholder process, I do not beleive we should endorse that process. > > So while I favored the supporting language, I do not accept anything that can show that Civil society is fine with Government driven processes that can be hijacked by the government. > > > avri > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [With IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Since Avri is objecting, we now don't have consensus. >> >> Since we don't have time for a rough consensus call (which according to >> the charter requires at least 48 hours) this means that unless Avri >> withdraws her objection, IGC won't endorse the letter. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:37:53 -0400 >> schrieb Carolina : >> >>> Hi Avri, >>> I think your conclusion about what we (Brazilians) say/think is not >>> totally correct. The issue around Marco Civil is much more complex. >>> It does have really good text and principles. There are some >>> contentious issues, including ISP liability, NN and data retention >>> and mirroring, but still is a exemplary bill and process. I would be >>> happy to chat with you by Skype and go over all such issues and map >>> how the actors are around these are in Brazil. Best, Carolina >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Re[sectifully disagree. >>>> >>>> We went through months of messages in various list of how the >>>> process for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI >>>> behind. Until this letter, everything I was hearing from >>>> Brazilians was how bad Marco Civil was. Now we have a situation >>>> where several countries have joined the list of countries gone >>>> rouge and civil society is willing to go back to government run >>>> models. >>>> >>>> I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had >>>> supported it before the change. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>>> >>>>> If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at >>>>> what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to >>>>> have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the >>>>> text, as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> parminder at itforchange.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I agree... >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed >>>>>>> with the endorsements, ok? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this >>>>>>> yellow part about the process: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>>>>>> Draft Bill >>>>>>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >>>>>>> upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and >>>>>>> democratic process in which it was conceived. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be >>>>>>>> mentioned as bring >>>>>>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I >>>>>>>> understand that >>>>>>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. >>>>>>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian >>>>>>>> IG scene, why should bwe not mention it. >>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Parminder, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we >>>>>>>> could go: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder >>>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to >>>>>>>> the world. >>>>>>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting >>>>>>>> point. But >>>>>>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with >>>>>>>> things. In >>>>>>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political >>>>>>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose >>>>>>>> if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? >>>>>>>> The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous >>>>>>>> paragraphs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time >>>>>>>> is passing >>>>>>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the >>>>>>>> outreach. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and >>>>>>>> insights. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The text is fine as it is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing >>>>>>>>> point 4? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So >>>>>>>>> could we go >>>>>>>>> for: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder >>>>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with >>>>>>>>>> the texto, >>>>>>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model >>>>>>>>>> should be extended to the world. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of >>>>>>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to >>>>>>>>>> a conclusion that though its >>>>>>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's >>>>>>>>>> speech, we should >>>>>>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a >>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder approach >>>>>>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach >>>>>>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version >>>>>>>>>> or want to submit >>>>>>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) >>>>>>>>>> meaning? >>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is >>>>>>>>>>> UTC-3 >>>>>>>>>>> - - - >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad >>>>>>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>>> all the contributions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or >>>>>>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 >>>>>>>>>>>> am (Brazilian time). >>>>>>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's >>>>>>>>>>>> say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it >>>>>>>>>>>> in hand to President Dilma. * >>>>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** >>>>>>>>>>>> Organizations** **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of >>>>>>>>>>>> her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >>>>>>>>>>>> around the world, committed to the development of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet and its use for advancing social and economic >>>>>>>>>>>> justice, would like to express our strong support for the >>>>>>>>>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency >>>>>>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. >>>>>>>>>>>> We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and >>>>>>>>>>>> would like to: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >>>>>>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet >>>>>>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>>>>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that >>>>>>>>>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval >>>>>>>>>>>> and demanding explanations from the USA about the >>>>>>>>>>>> procedures of illegal interception of information and >>>>>>>>>>>> data, framing it as a grave violation of >>>>>>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >>>>>>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the >>>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led >>>>>>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, >>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>>>>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment >>>>>>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, >>>>>>>>>>>> and reliable >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signatories: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Thu Sep 26 09:20:32 2013 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:20:32 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sign / 1 Divina Le 26/09/13 14:46, « Antonio Medina Gómez » a écrit : > Sign . +1 > > > 2013/9/26 Carlos A. Afonso >> I agree! I think we will be able to deliver the letter to the prez on >> Friday. This will be a fantastic milestone on our part. >> >> Let's go and sign it, folks! >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 09/25/2013 11:15 PM, Veridiana Alimonti wrote: >>> > Dear Joana and all, >>> > >>> > the letter is concise, pointing important issues without losing the >>> general >>> > line of support. Very good! >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2013/9/25 Joana Varon >>> > >>>> >> Dear all, >>>> >> >>>> >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to >>>> avoid >>>> >> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>>> >> >>>> >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major >>>> >> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian >>>> time). >>>> >> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>> >> >>>> >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, >>>> >> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President >>>> >> Dilma. * >>>> >> * >>>> >> >>>> >> thanks once again, >>>> >> >>>> >> joana >>>> >> >>>> >> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to >>>> >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th >>>> >> Session of the **UNGA * >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Your Excellency, >>>> >> >>>> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >>>> >> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing >>>> >> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support >>>> forthe statement delivered this week by your >>>> >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >>>> >> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: >>>> >> >>>> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >>>> clear >>>> >> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* >>>> *Principles >>>> >> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>> >> >>>> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft >>>> >> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds >>>> >> these principles. >>>> >> >>>> >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding >>>> >> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of >>>> >> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights >>>> and >>>> >> of civil liberties >>>> >> >>>> >> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>>> >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >>>> >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >>>> >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and >>>> TechnologyCommunity, >>>> >> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>> >> >>>> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social >>>> >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is >>>> >> a fundamental pillar. >>>> >> >>>> >> Signatories: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < >>>> >> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>>> >>> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < >>>>> >>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>  Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. >>>>>> >>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Louis >>>>>> >>>> - - - >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same >>>>>>> >>>>> time worse. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two >>>>>>> paragraphs >>>>>>> >>>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. ­ the first >>>>>>> >>>>> paragraph >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >>>>>>> world, >>>>>>> >>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >>>>>>> advancing >>>>>>> >>>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the >>>>>>> >>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th >>>>>>> Session of >>>>>>> >>>>>  the United Nations General Assembly. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read >>>>>>> >>>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it). >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and >>>>>>> demand >>>>>>> >>>>> apologies from the USA. That ain¹t going to happen. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> >>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> >>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> -- >>>>> >>> 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) >>>>> >>> -- >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> -- >>>> >> >>>> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> >> @joana_varon >>>> >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 09:21:21 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:21:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Anja, do you have language? Are you suggesting something like: "Reinforce our support for the multistakeholder for global internet governance, and for Brazil's version of multistakeholderism as led by CGI.br." On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thanks for your efforts, Jeremy, but our concern is with the absence of a > reference to multistakeholderism at the global level, and that remains. > > Anja > On Sep 26, 2013 6:32 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > >> On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 >> but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the >> shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian >> context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed >> earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for >> Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to >> the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support >> this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. >> >> >> Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce >> our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet >> governance *as* led *in Brazil* by CGI.br "? >> >> Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with >> the old formulation or the new one. >> >> -- >> >> *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 avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 09:22:20 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:22:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi, If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing. If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can be changed. So as I stands I recommend against signing. If we do sign, someone somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported government driven and controlled processes in this case. They will be right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to have done in the Brazilian congressional process. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. >> > > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"? > > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with the old formulation or the new one. > > -- > 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 joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 09:23:14 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <20130926130901.4CF743F49D1@a2knetwork.org> References: <20130926130901.4CF743F49D1@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: That was the goal, Jefsey. Anja is not happy at all? I though that bringing the support of the principle of multistakeholderism (instead of multilateralism) we would be fine. A deeper approach would take us away from consensus in such a short time. And Avri, we are doing all this exactly in support of the recent status of marco civil, which ensures the principles that we have been defending through out the whole process (including net neutrality) and to reinforce that the democratic collaborative process of the consultation shall be taking into account now that the draft is in Congress. Unfortunatelly, we cannot start making more changes as people are already endorsing it. Im really sorry for the ones who couldnt agree with the last changes. It is always very difficult to make everyone completely happy. I believe that Diego and I have tried to do our best to understand your points and bring your considerations in the final adjustments. We can always do better next time. So... lets sign and share,people! ;) all the best joana On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Excellent wording. Please do not change a single word in point 4. We do > not care about the Brazilia model per se, we do care about a national model > being nationally supported and endorsed by its governement and industry to > the point to become disruptive at international level and at the head of > state layer. > > What is to be extended is not the Brazilian model, but the experience > obtained from the Brazilean introduction of a consensual model. > > Please add among signatories: > - J-F C. MORFIN, Intlnet (http://intlnet.org ) > jfc > > > At 03:44 26/09/2013, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid > more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. > > Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). > Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, > also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President > Dilma. * > * > thanks once again, > > joana > > *Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma > Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA > * > > Your Excellency, > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for > the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of > the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading > role on these issues and would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear > accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles > for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft > Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds > these principles. > > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding > explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of > information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and > of civil liberties > > 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder > model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises > representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, > private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is > a fundamental pillar. > > Signatories: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > > Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc one > x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, Sep > 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same > time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two > paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To be honest, I > think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph We, the > undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed > to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social > justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement > delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United > Nations General Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those > who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and > elaborate on it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post > Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian > Peter > > ____________________________________________________________ You received > this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and > functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit > your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- 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) > -- ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 09:25:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:25:11 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would be moot in this case? Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your perspective? Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:08:44 +0200 schrieb JFC Morfin : > Excellent wording. Please do not change a single word in point 4. We > do not care about the Brazilia model per se, we do care about a > national model being nationally supported and endorsed by its > governement and industry to the point to become disruptive at > international level and at the head of state layer. > > What is to be extended is not the Brazilian model, but the experience > obtained from the Brazilean introduction of a consensual model. > > Please add among signatories: > - J-F C. MORFIN, Intlnet (http://intlnet.org ) > jfc > > > At 03:44 26/09/2013, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to > avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the > contributions. > > Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major > disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian > time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. > > Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, > also Brazilian time. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President > Dilma. > > thanks once again, > > joana > > Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > UNGA > > > Your Excellency, > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > and would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's > Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > upholds these principles. 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about > the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, > framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > > 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology > Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > Signatories: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at > 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc > one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, > Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more > than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To > be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our > strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would > like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on > it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, > and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian > Peter ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- 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) -- > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 09:26:44 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:26:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: In this world, money always talks; democracy is at best messy; we need to be able to act quickly in response to policy opportunities, or we limit our own ability to influence political processes -- so compromise languague is necessary to bring a broad global network together; and we must also be clever -- politics will always interfere with even the most wonderful democratic processes and legislation can change up to the last minute, so we need to be EQUALLY prepared to withdraw or adjust our support for efforts that go awry. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer > endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing. > > If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder > governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing > > However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can be > changed. > > So as I stands I recommend against signing. If we do sign, someone > somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported > government driven and controlled processes in this case. They will be > right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that > can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to > have done in the Brazilian congressional process. > > avri > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 > but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the > shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian > context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed > earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for > Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to > the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support > this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. > >> > > > > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce > our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet > governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"? > > > > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with > the old formulation or the new one. > > > > -- > > 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 joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 09:28:28 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:28:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Avri and Anja, could you quickly make very punctual suggetions for addressing these two points of concern?? Its very important to have IGC, APC and your respective organizations supporting it On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer > endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing. > > If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder > governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing > > However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can be > changed. > > So as I stands I recommend against signing. If we do sign, someone > somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported > government driven and controlled processes in this case. They will be > right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that > can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to > have done in the Brazilian congressional process. > > avri > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 > but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the > shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian > context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed > earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for > Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to > the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support > this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. > >> > > > > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce > our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet > governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"? > > > > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with > the old formulation or the new one. > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 09:28:48 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:28:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: OBJECTION ACK Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <5244346F.2020402@cafonso.ca> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> <20130926144717.5b583dce@swan.bollow.ch> <16932AFC-17CF-4487-8E72-1F080C6B3593@acm.org> <5244346F.2020402@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I could not agree more. CA is right and it would be great to count with the support of international Civil Society. It would be great to have a vote of trust, as we have given many in the past. to reinforce, the process was GENERALLY multistakeholder, much consultation, during many years; people ended up complaining about delays (multiple votes posponed), undue influence from powerful companies (no surprise!), and in the end, the President weighed in on our side on some of the most crucial issues (surveillance revelations gave us a boost and finally Dilma bought this fight personally) (Luck is part of the policy process...). The process can never guarantee a precise result; and processes will change as political power is exercised -- so the groups are endorsing how this appears to be working RIGHT NOW, and everyone will need to maintain solidarity to adjust their views IF the process goes awry in the future. Both Marco Civil and the Reform of the Copyright law in Brazil are exemplary examples of participation in the legislative process. And this should be repeated over and over again. They also opened the doors for a whole new generation of people that got engaged Carol On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear Avri, the MC has not been "hijacked by the government". It remains > so far the same proposal civil society here endorsed when it was finally > introduced to Congress after two years of public discussion. Like in any > representative democracy, the process through Congress will be painful, > and I think the letter tries to make clear that we are defending the MC > version which retains the values expressed in the letter. We might lose > the battle, but there is no hijacking, and the tide seems to be turning > in our favor. > > I cannot tell you how hard was our effort to get through the usual > barriers to reach the president. And the result was in our view > formidable -- we cannot lose momentum now. The MC is now going through a > fast-track process and must be approved in less than three months -- we > must make sure that what is approved is as close as possible to the > original proposal. > > So, this support is very relevant to strengthen our advocacy here at > this moment. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 09/26/2013 10:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am sorry. > > > > I was satisfied with the previous version and was happy we had something > supportable until the last minute changes > > > > But after hearing for months, on this list and elsewhere, about how the > Marco Civil had been hijacked by the government and altered, even if it > started as a multistakeholder process, I do not beleive we should endorse > that process. > > > > So while I favored the supporting language, I do not accept anything > that can show that Civil society is fine with Government driven processes > that can be hijacked by the government. > > > > > > avri > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > >> [With IGC coordinator hat on] > >> > >> Since Avri is objecting, we now don't have consensus. > >> > >> Since we don't have time for a rough consensus call (which according to > >> the charter requires at least 48 hours) this means that unless Avri > >> withdraws her objection, IGC won't endorse the letter. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:37:53 -0400 > >> schrieb Carolina : > >> > >>> Hi Avri, > >>> I think your conclusion about what we (Brazilians) say/think is not > >>> totally correct. The issue around Marco Civil is much more complex. > >>> It does have really good text and principles. There are some > >>> contentious issues, including ISP liability, NN and data retention > >>> and mirroring, but still is a exemplary bill and process. I would be > >>> happy to chat with you by Skype and go over all such issues and map > >>> how the actors are around these are in Brazil. Best, Carolina > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>> On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Re[sectifully disagree. > >>>> > >>>> We went through months of messages in various list of how the > >>>> process for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI > >>>> behind. Until this letter, everything I was hearing from > >>>> Brazilians was how bad Marco Civil was. Now we have a situation > >>>> where several countries have joined the list of countries gone > >>>> rouge and civil society is willing to go back to government run > >>>> models. > >>>> > >>>> I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had > >>>> supported it before the change. > >>>> > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>>>> > >>>>> If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at > >>>>> what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to > >>>>> have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the > >>>>> text, as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. > >>>>> > >>>>> Greetings, > >>>>> Norbert > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I agree... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed > >>>>>>> with the endorsements, ok? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this > >>>>>>> yellow part about the process: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > >>>>>>> Draft Bill > >>>>>>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > >>>>>>> upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and > >>>>>>> democratic process in which it was conceived. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Joana > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be > >>>>>>>> mentioned as bring > >>>>>>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I > >>>>>>>> understand that > >>>>>>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. > >>>>>>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian > >>>>>>>> IG scene, why should bwe not mention it. > >>>>>>>> parminder > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear Parminder, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we > >>>>>>>> could go: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder > >>>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to > >>>>>>>> the world. > >>>>>>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting > >>>>>>>> point. But > >>>>>>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with > >>>>>>>> things. In > >>>>>>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political > >>>>>>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose > >>>>>>>> if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? > >>>>>>>> The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous > >>>>>>>> paragraphs. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time > >>>>>>>> is passing > >>>>>>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the > >>>>>>>> outreach. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and > >>>>>>>> insights. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Joana > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The text is fine as it is. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing > >>>>>>>>> point 4? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --srs (htc one x) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So > >>>>>>>>> could we go > >>>>>>>>> for: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder > >>>>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with > >>>>>>>>>> the texto, > >>>>>>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model > >>>>>>>>>> should be extended to the world. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of > >>>>>>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to > >>>>>>>>>> a conclusion that though its > >>>>>>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's > >>>>>>>>>> speech, we should > >>>>>>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a > >>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder approach > >>>>>>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach > >>>>>>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version > >>>>>>>>>> or want to submit > >>>>>>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) > >>>>>>>>>> meaning? > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> best > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, Louis > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is > >>>>>>>>>>> UTC-3 > >>>>>>>>>>> - - - > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad > >>>>>>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for > >>>>>>>>>>>> all the contributions. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or > >>>>>>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 > >>>>>>>>>>>> am (Brazilian time). > >>>>>>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's > >>>>>>>>>>>> say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it > >>>>>>>>>>>> in hand to President Dilma. * > >>>>>>>>>>>> * > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> thanks once again, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** > >>>>>>>>>>>> Organizations** **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of > >>>>>>>>>>>> her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > >>>>>>>>>>>> around the world, committed to the development of the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet and its use for advancing social and economic > >>>>>>>>>>>> justice, would like to express our strong support for the > >>>>>>>>>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency > >>>>>>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. > >>>>>>>>>>>> We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and > >>>>>>>>>>>> would like to: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the > >>>>>>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet > >>>>>>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles > >>>>>>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da > >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that > >>>>>>>>>>>> upholds these principles. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval > >>>>>>>>>>>> and demanding explanations from the USA about the > >>>>>>>>>>>> procedures of illegal interception of information and > >>>>>>>>>>>> data, framing it as a grave violation of > >>>>>>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader > >>>>>>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the > >>>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led > >>>>>>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, > >>>>>>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment > >>>>>>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, > >>>>>>>>>>>> and reliable > >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Signatories: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 09:30:26 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:30:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi, I agree. That is why I was willing to support the version that was posted as final yesterday that praised the content without praising the process. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:26, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > In this world, money always talks; democracy is at best messy; we need to be able to act quickly in response to policy opportunities, or we limit our own ability to influence political processes -- so compromise languague is necessary to bring a broad global network together; and we must also be clever -- politics will always interfere with even the most wonderful democratic processes and legislation can change up to the last minute, so we need to be EQUALLY prepared to withdraw or adjust our support for efforts that go awry. > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing. > > If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing > > However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can be changed. > > So as I stands I recommend against signing. If we do sign, someone somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported government driven and controlled processes in this case. They will be right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to have done in the Brazilian congressional process. > > avri > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. > >> > > > > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"? > > > > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with the old formulation or the new one. > > > > -- > > 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 avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 09:34:01 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:34:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: OBJECTION ACK Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <5244346F.2020402@cafonso.ca> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> <20130926144717.5b583dce@swan.bollow.ch> <16932AFC-17CF-4487-8E72-1F080C6B3593@acm.org> <5244346F.2020402@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <3BB4537A-A756-4968-9059-F109EA9F49DE@acm.org> Hi, I appreciate that this is your current position, but it was not several months ago. I do not have time to go through and find all the mail from Brazil that condemned the process. That is why I supported the letter without supporting the process. It is only the last edit that pushed me over the edge to recommending against signing. I agree with Anja that more support of Multistakeholder governance would be helpful, but at least there had been a touch in the precious letter until it was overshadowed by the last edit. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:19, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear Avri, the MC has not been "hijacked by the government". It remains > so far the same proposal civil society here endorsed when it was finally > introduced to Congress after two years of public discussion. Like in any > representative democracy, the process through Congress will be painful, > and I think the letter tries to make clear that we are defending the MC > version which retains the values expressed in the letter. We might lose > the battle, but there is no hijacking, and the tide seems to be turning > in our favor. > > I cannot tell you how hard was our effort to get through the usual > barriers to reach the president. And the result was in our view > formidable -- we cannot lose momentum now. The MC is now going through a > fast-track process and must be approved in less than three months -- we > must make sure that what is approved is as close as possible to the > original proposal. > > So, this support is very relevant to strengthen our advocacy here at > this moment. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 09/26/2013 10:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am sorry. >> >> I was satisfied with the previous version and was happy we had something supportable until the last minute changes >> >> But after hearing for months, on this list and elsewhere, about how the Marco Civil had been hijacked by the government and altered, even if it started as a multistakeholder process, I do not beleive we should endorse that process. >> >> So while I favored the supporting language, I do not accept anything that can show that Civil society is fine with Government driven processes that can be hijacked by the government. >> >> >> avri >> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> [With IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> Since Avri is objecting, we now don't have consensus. >>> >>> Since we don't have time for a rough consensus call (which according to >>> the charter requires at least 48 hours) this means that unless Avri >>> withdraws her objection, IGC won't endorse the letter. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:37:53 -0400 >>> schrieb Carolina : >>> >>>> Hi Avri, >>>> I think your conclusion about what we (Brazilians) say/think is not >>>> totally correct. The issue around Marco Civil is much more complex. >>>> It does have really good text and principles. There are some >>>> contentious issues, including ISP liability, NN and data retention >>>> and mirroring, but still is a exemplary bill and process. I would be >>>> happy to chat with you by Skype and go over all such issues and map >>>> how the actors are around these are in Brazil. Best, Carolina >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Re[sectifully disagree. >>>>> >>>>> We went through months of messages in various list of how the >>>>> process for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI >>>>> behind. Until this letter, everything I was hearing from >>>>> Brazilians was how bad Marco Civil was. Now we have a situation >>>>> where several countries have joined the list of countries gone >>>>> rouge and civil society is willing to go back to government run >>>>> models. >>>>> >>>>> I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had >>>>> supported it before the change. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>>>> >>>>>> If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at >>>>>> what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to >>>>>> have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the >>>>>> text, as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. >>>>>> >>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>> Norbert >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder at itforchange.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed >>>>>>>> with the endorsements, ok? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this >>>>>>>> yellow part about the process: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>>>>>>> Draft Bill >>>>>>>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >>>>>>>> upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and >>>>>>>> democratic process in which it was conceived. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joana >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be >>>>>>>>> mentioned as bring >>>>>>>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I >>>>>>>>> understand that >>>>>>>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. >>>>>>>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian >>>>>>>>> IG scene, why should bwe not mention it. >>>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Parminder, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we >>>>>>>>> could go: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder >>>>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to >>>>>>>>> the world. >>>>>>>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting >>>>>>>>> point. But >>>>>>>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with >>>>>>>>> things. In >>>>>>>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political >>>>>>>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose >>>>>>>>> if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? >>>>>>>>> The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous >>>>>>>>> paragraphs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time >>>>>>>>> is passing >>>>>>>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the >>>>>>>>> outreach. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and >>>>>>>>> insights. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joana >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The text is fine as it is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing >>>>>>>>>> point 4? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So >>>>>>>>>> could we go >>>>>>>>>> for: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder >>>>>>>>>> model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with >>>>>>>>>>> the texto, >>>>>>>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model >>>>>>>>>>> should be extended to the world. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of >>>>>>>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to >>>>>>>>>>> a conclusion that though its >>>>>>>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's >>>>>>>>>>> speech, we should >>>>>>>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a >>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder approach >>>>>>>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach >>>>>>>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version >>>>>>>>>>> or want to submit >>>>>>>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) >>>>>>>>>>> meaning? >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-3 >>>>>>>>>>>> - - - >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad >>>>>>>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>>>>> all the contributions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or >>>>>>>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 >>>>>>>>>>>>> am (Brazilian time). >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's >>>>>>>>>>>>> say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it >>>>>>>>>>>>> in hand to President Dilma. * >>>>>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** >>>>>>>>>>>>> Organizations** **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of >>>>>>>>>>>>> her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >>>>>>>>>>>>> around the world, committed to the development of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet and its use for advancing social and economic >>>>>>>>>>>>> justice, would like to express our strong support for the >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. >>>>>>>>>>>>> We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and >>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet >>>>>>>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that >>>>>>>>>>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval >>>>>>>>>>>>> and demanding explanations from the USA about the >>>>>>>>>>>>> procedures of illegal interception of information and >>>>>>>>>>>>> data, framing it as a grave violation of >>>>>>>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >>>>>>>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led >>>>>>>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>>>>>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment >>>>>>>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and reliable >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signatories: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 09:34:28 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:34:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB In-Reply-To: References: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree. > > That is why I was willing to support the version that was posted as final > yesterday that praised the content without praising the process. > > avri > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:26, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > > > In this world, money always talks; democracy is at best messy; we need > to be able to act quickly in response to policy opportunities, or we limit > our own ability to influence political processes -- so compromise languague > is necessary to bring a broad global network together; and we must also be > clever -- politics will always interfere with even the most wonderful > democratic processes and legislation can change up to the last minute, so > we need to be EQUALLY prepared to withdraw or adjust our support for > efforts that go awry. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer > endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing. > > > > If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder > governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing > > > > However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can > be changed. > > > > So as I stands I recommend against signing. If we do sign, someone > somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported > government driven and controlled processes in this case. They will be > right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that > can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to > have done in the Brazilian congressional process. > > > > avri > > > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > > > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number > 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the > shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian > context and thus does not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed > earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for > Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to > the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support > this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that. > > >> > > > > > > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce > our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet > governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"? > > > > > > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either > with the old formulation or the new one. > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > -- *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 avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 09:37:41 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:37:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> Message-ID: <33DD7BEF-6538-4919-B941-D651C3A26665@acm.org> Hi, I am sure my view is not correct. As I said I support you in supporting the content of Marco Civil. I am not willing to support the notion that the process you went though is one for the world to follow. Maybe if I understood the process beter, I would support it. But for now I support the content as long as you are happy with it but will not support the practice as a world example - at least without knowing a whole lot more. At the moment it looks like a less then adequate example for the world to follow - though one certainly worthy of study and better understanding. And all I have to go on, other than my own reading is what you all have been arguing for the last years or more. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:37, Carolina wrote: > Hi Avri, > I think your conclusion about what we (Brazilians) say/think is not totally correct. The issue around Marco Civil is much more complex. It does have really good text and principles. There are some contentious issues, including ISP liability, NN and data retention and mirroring, but still is a exemplary bill and process. > I would be happy to chat with you by Skype and go over all such issues and map how the actors are around these are in Brazil. > Best, > Carolina > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Re[sectifully disagree. >> >> We went through months of messages in various list of how the process for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI behind. Until this letter, everything I was hearing from Brazilians was how bad Marco Civil was. Now we have a situation where several countries have joined the list of countries gone rouge and civil society is willing to go back to government run models. >> >> I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had supported it before the change. >> >> avri >> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at >>> what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! >>> >>> I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to >>> have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the text, >>> as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> parminder at itforchange.net wrote: >>> >>>> I agree... >>>> >>>> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with >>>>> the endorsements, ok? >>>>> >>>>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow >>>>> part about the process: >>>>> >>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>>>> Draft Bill >>>>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds >>>>> these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process >>>>> in which it was conceived. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Joana >>>>>> >>>>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned >>>>>> as bring >>>>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I >>>>>> understand that >>>>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. >>>>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG >>>>>> scene, why should bwe not mention it. >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Parminder, >>>>>> >>>>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we >>>>>> could go: >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model >>>>>> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>>> >>>>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the >>>>>> world. >>>>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting >>>>>> point. But >>>>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with >>>>>> things. In >>>>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political >>>>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if >>>>>> this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part >>>>>> of marco civil is already mentioned in previous paragraphs. >>>>>> >>>>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is >>>>>> passing >>>>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the >>>>>> outreach. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best. >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The text is fine as it is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing >>>>>>> point 4? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So >>>>>>> could we go >>>>>>> for: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model >>>>>>> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the >>>>>>>> texto, >>>>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should >>>>>>>> be extended to the world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of >>>>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a >>>>>>>> conclusion that though its >>>>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, >>>>>>>> we should >>>>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a >>>>>>>> multistakeholder approach >>>>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach >>>>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or >>>>>>>> want to submit >>>>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) >>>>>>>> meaning? >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >>>>>>>>> Cheers, Louis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >>>>>>>>> - - - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad >>>>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for >>>>>>>>>> all the contributions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or >>>>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am >>>>>>>>>> (Brazilian time). >>>>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say >>>>>>>>>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand >>>>>>>>>> to President Dilma. * >>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks once again, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> joana >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** >>>>>>>>>> **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at >>>>>>>>>> **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around >>>>>>>>>> the world, committed to the development of the Internet and >>>>>>>>>> its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like >>>>>>>>>> to express our strong support for the statement delivered this >>>>>>>>>> week by your Excellency >>>>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We >>>>>>>>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and >>>>>>>>>> would like to: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >>>>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet >>>>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles >>>>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the >>>>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da >>>>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that >>>>>>>>>> upholds these principles. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >>>>>>>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of >>>>>>>>>> illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a >>>>>>>>>> grave violation of >>>>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >>>>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the >>>>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led >>>>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, >>>>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, >>>>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment >>>>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, >>>>>>>>>> and reliable >>>>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signatories: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 09:45:16 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:45:16 -0400 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> Hi Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. That works for me. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would > be moot in this case? > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your > perspective? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > >> >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the >> UNGA >> >> >> Your Excellency, >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues >> and would like to: >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >> upholds these principles. >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties >> >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> >> Signatories: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- 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) -- >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 09:47:46 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:47:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <33DD7BEF-6538-4919-B941-D651C3A26665@acm.org> References: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52441BFC.4030307@itforchange.net> <20130926142003.4823cf09@swan.bollow.ch> <4BE30B6E-75DA-4EC0-B542-5E0ABDFAF9BD@gmail.com> <33DD7BEF-6538-4919-B941-D651C3A26665@acm.org> Message-ID: some here - http://direitorio.fgv.br/civilrightsframeworkforinternet On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am sure my view is not correct. > > As I said I support you in supporting the content of Marco Civil. > > I am not willing to support the notion that the process you went though is > one for the world to follow. Maybe if I understood the process beter, I > would support it. But for now I support the content as long as you are > happy with it but will not support the practice as a world example - at > least without knowing a whole lot more. At the moment it looks like a less > then adequate example for the world to follow - though one certainly worthy > of study and better understanding. > > And all I have to go on, other than my own reading is what you all have > been arguing for the last years or more. > > avri > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:37, Carolina wrote: > > > Hi Avri, > > I think your conclusion about what we (Brazilians) say/think is not > totally correct. The issue around Marco Civil is much more complex. It does > have really good text and principles. There are some contentious issues, > including ISP liability, NN and data retention and mirroring, but still is > a exemplary bill and process. > > I would be happy to chat with you by Skype and go over all such issues > and map how the actors are around these are in Brazil. > > Best, > > Carolina > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Sep 26, 2013, at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Re[sectifully disagree. > >> > >> We went through months of messages in various list of how the process > for the Marco Civil had left the Civil Society and the CGI behind. Until > this letter, everything I was hearing from Brazilians was how bad Marco > Civil was. Now we have a situation where several countries have joined the > list of countries gone rouge and civil society is willing to go back to > government run models. > >> > >> I disagree with the letter as currently changed, though I had supported > it before the change. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 08:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>> > >>> If I'm reading this right, this discussion seems to have arrived at > >>> what may be a consensus text. Congratulations! > >>> > >>> I'd like to request that as soon as the draft text is believed to > >>> have stabilized, one of the drafters post a complete copy of the text, > >>> as the basis for a formal IGC consensus call. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> > >>> parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > >>> > >>>> I agree... > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for an excellent and quick, Joana. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Parminder, we reached our deadline of 9am in BRA. Lets proceed with > >>>>> the endorsements, ok? > >>>>> > >>>>> Marco civil is on item 2. We could add something like this yellow > >>>>> part about the process: > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > >>>>> Draft Bill > >>>>> of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds > >>>>> these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process > >>>>> in which it was conceived. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, parminder > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Joana > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am fine if I am explained why marco process cannot be mentioned > >>>>>> as bring > >>>>>> a part of Brazilian IG scene that should be promoted... I > >>>>>> understand that > >>>>>> this process is also deliberative while being consensus seeking. > >>>>>> Marco Civil process is a big and a happy part of the Brazilian IG > >>>>>> scene, why should bwe not mention it. > >>>>>> parminder > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Parminder, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we > >>>>>> could go: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model > >>>>>> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the > >>>>>> world. > >>>>>> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting > >>>>>> point. But > >>>>>> it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with > >>>>>> things. In > >>>>>> fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political > >>>>>> power as endorsing it as a legitim intent. So, for the purpose if > >>>>>> this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part > >>>>>> of marco civil is already mentioned in previous paragraphs. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is > >>>>>> passing > >>>>>> by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the > >>>>>> outreach. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Joana > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The text is fine as it is. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing > >>>>>>> point 4? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --srs (htc one x) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So > >>>>>>> could we go > >>>>>>> for: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model > >>>>>>> for Internet governance lead by CGI.br. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Louis and Parminder, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the > >>>>>>>> texto, > >>>>>>>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should > >>>>>>>> be extended to the world. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of > >>>>>>>> multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a > >>>>>>>> conclusion that though its > >>>>>>>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, > >>>>>>>> we should > >>>>>>>> reinforce our support for developing models for a > >>>>>>>> multistakeholder approach > >>>>>>>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach > >>>>>>>> this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or > >>>>>>>> want to submit > >>>>>>>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) > >>>>>>>> meaning? > >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the understanding. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> best > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, Louis > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 > >>>>>>>>> - - - > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad > >>>>>>>>>> now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for > >>>>>>>>>> all the contributions. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or > >>>>>>>>>> major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am > >>>>>>>>>> (Brazilian time). > >>>>>>>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say > >>>>>>>>>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand > >>>>>>>>>> to President Dilma. * > >>>>>>>>>> * > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> thanks once again, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> joana > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** > >>>>>>>>>> **to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at > >>>>>>>>>> **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Your Excellency, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around > >>>>>>>>>> the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > >>>>>>>>>> its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like > >>>>>>>>>> to express our strong support for the statement delivered this > >>>>>>>>>> week by your Excellency > >>>>>>>>>> at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We > >>>>>>>>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and > >>>>>>>>>> would like to: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the > >>>>>>>>>> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet > >>>>>>>>>> Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles > >>>>>>>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the > >>>>>>>>>> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da > >>>>>>>>>> Internet) in a way that > >>>>>>>>>> upholds these principles. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and > >>>>>>>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of > >>>>>>>>>> illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a > >>>>>>>>>> grave violation of > >>>>>>>>>> human rights and of civil liberties > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader > >>>>>>>>>> spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the > >>>>>>>>>> Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led > >>>>>>>>>> by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, > >>>>>>>>>> Scientific and TechnologyCommunity, > >>>>>>>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment > >>>>>>>>>> to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, > >>>>>>>>>> and reliable > >>>>>>>>>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Signatories: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz > >>>>> @joana_varon > >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 09:50:34 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:50:34 -0400 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> Message-ID: Avri to clarify your position, can you send language for paragraph 4? not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure we have your language On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco > Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the > past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > That works for me. > > avri > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would > > be moot in this case? > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your > > perspective? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > >> > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > >> UNGA > >> > >> > >> Your Excellency, > >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > >> and would like to: > >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > >> upholds these principles. > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >> > >> Signatories: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > >> information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- 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) -- > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > >> information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> @joana_varon > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >> > >> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Sep 26 09:51:09 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:21:09 +0530 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which point 4 starts as follows: "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", My answer is yes, we would support that. Thanks, Anja On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco > Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the > past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > That works for me. > > avri > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would > > be moot in this case? > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your > > perspective? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > >> > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > >> UNGA > >> > >> > >> Your Excellency, > >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > >> and would like to: > >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > >> upholds these principles. > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >> > >> Signatories: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > >> information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- 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) -- > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > >> information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> @joana_varon > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >> > >> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 09:58:49 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:58:49 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130926155849.0a263c54@swan.bollow.ch> Anja Kovacs wrote: > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, The one that was quoted verbatim in the email to which I replied > but if it is the one in > which point 4 starts as follows: > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet > governance, led by CGI.br", yes in this version point 4 starts like this. > My answer is yes, we would support that. Thanks for clarifying! Greetings, Norbert > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the > > Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of > > the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > > > That works for me. > > > > avri > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to > > > this version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections > > > would be moot in this case? > > > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, > > > or would the shortened version just have been strongly preferable > > > from your perspective? > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to > > >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th > > >> Session of the UNGA > > >> > > >> > > >> Your Excellency, > > >> > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use > > >> for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express > > >> our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these > > >> issues and would like to: > > >> > > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, > > >> in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering > > >> Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of the > > >> Internet. > > >> > > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way > > >> that upholds these principles. > > > > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA > > >> about the procedures of illegal interception of information and > > >> data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of > > >> civil liberties > > >> > > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, > > >> which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and > > >> Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on an > > >> equal footing. > > >> > > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > >> > > >> Signatories: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me > > >> in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, > > >> 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs > > >> (htc one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin > > >> (well)" wrote: Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. > > >> Louis - - - On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any > > >> more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is > > >> meagre. To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. > > >> – the first paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and > > >> individuals from around the world, committed to the development > > >> of the Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would > > >> like to express our strong support for the statement delivered > > >> this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United > > >> Nations General Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish > > >> for those who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, > > >> interpret it, and elaborate on it). And specifically I dont > > >> think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand apologies from > > >> the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian Peter > > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other > > >> list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile > > >> and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: > > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- 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) -- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other > > >> list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile > > >> and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: > > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >> @joana_varon > > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > > >> > > >> > > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 09:59:24 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:59:24 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> Message-ID: Just for consideration, would APC and IGC sign if we do this small change to have item 4 drafted as: "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Hi, > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which > point 4 starts as follows: > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet > Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of > Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco >> Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. >> >> When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the >> past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. >> >> That works for me. >> >> avri >> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> > >> > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this >> > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? >> > >> > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would >> > be moot in this case? >> > >> > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would >> > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your >> > perspective? >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President >> >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the >> >> UNGA >> >> >> >> >> >> Your Excellency, >> >> >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >> >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >> >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >> >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues >> >> and would like to: >> >> >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >> >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's >> >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> >> >> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >> >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >> >> upholds these principles. >> >> >> >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in >> >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about >> >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, >> >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties >> >> >> >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >> >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology >> >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >> >> >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >> >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and >> >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> >> >> >> Signatories: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in >> >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at >> >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> >> >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc >> >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: >> >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, >> >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the >> >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more >> >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To >> >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >> >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and >> >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our >> >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would >> >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on >> >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, >> >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian >> >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> >> information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to >> >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- 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) -- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> >> information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to >> >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >> @joana_varon >> >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> >> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 26 10:02:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:32:06 +0530 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> Message-ID: <81EFDBA4-DFBA-4AB3-913D-BA52DE7FD436@hserus.net> The original text, in short. I do support that - and only endorsed the least controversial (or so it appeared to me) changed version in the interest of time. If IGC reverts to supporting the original draft I would be very happy to specifically endorse that. --srs (iPad) > On 26-Sep-2013, at 19:21, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Hi, > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which point 4 starts as follows: > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > Thanks, > Anja > > >> On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi >> >> Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. >> >> When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. >> >> That works for me. >> >> avri >> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> > >> > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this >> > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? >> > >> > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would >> > be moot in this case? >> > >> > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would >> > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your >> > perspective? >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President >> >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the >> >> UNGA >> >> >> >> >> >> Your Excellency, >> >> >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >> >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >> >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >> >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues >> >> and would like to: >> >> >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >> >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's >> >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> >> >> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >> >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >> >> upholds these principles. >> >> >> >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in >> >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about >> >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, >> >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties >> >> >> >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >> >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology >> >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >> >> >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >> >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and >> >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> >> >> >> Signatories: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in >> >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at >> >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> >> >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc >> >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: >> >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, >> >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the >> >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more >> >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To >> >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >> >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and >> >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our >> >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would >> >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on >> >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, >> >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian >> >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> >> information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to >> >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- 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) -- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> >> information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to >> >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> >> @joana_varon >> >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> >> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 10:03:38 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:03:38 -0400 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> Message-ID: <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> +1 to Anja's point. with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits site From Carolina > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email But since > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure we have your language Not sure why we are still trying. Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way Governments currently work. re: > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", Prefer the previous 4. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Hi, > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which point 4 starts as follows: > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > That works for me. > > avri > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would > > be moot in this case? > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your > > perspective? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > >> > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > >> UNGA > >> > >> > >> Your Excellency, > >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > >> and would like to: > >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > >> upholds these principles. > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >> > >> Signatories: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > >> information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- 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) -- > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > >> information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> @joana_varon > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >> > >> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 10:08:54 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:08:54 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: Ok. so here is what we will do. 1) Item 4 will be changed to: "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of the current version. OK???? On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > +1 to Anja's point. > > with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I am > a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits site > > From Carolina > > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email > > But since > > > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure > we have your language > > Not sure why we are still trying. > > Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do > not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way > Governments currently work. > > re: > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet > Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of > Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > Prefer the previous 4. > > avri > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which > point 4 starts as follows: > > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet > Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of > Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > > > Thanks, > > Anja > > > > > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi > > > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco > Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the > past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > > > That works for me. > > > > avri > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this > > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would > > > be moot in this case? > > > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or > would > > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your > > > perspective? > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > > >> UNGA > > >> > > >> > > >> Your Excellency, > > >> > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > > >> and would like to: > > >> > > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's > > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > >> > > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > > >> upholds these principles. > > > > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about > > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, > > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > > >> > > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology > > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > >> > > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > >> > > >> Signatories: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at > > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> > > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc > > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, > > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > >> > > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more > > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To > > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would > > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on > > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, > > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian > > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- 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) -- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >> @joana_varon > > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > > >> > > >> > > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 10:20:15 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:20:15 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ Email to the current endorsee sent. This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. Please, endorse! ;) Thanks for your pacience and commitment joana On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Ok. so here is what we will do. > > 1) Item 4 will be changed to: > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet > Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model > of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already > endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw > their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal > process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc supporting > the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of > the current version. > > > OK???? > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> +1 to Anja's point. >> >> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I >> am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits site >> >> From Carolina >> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email >> >> But since >> >> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure >> we have your language >> >> Not sure why we are still trying. >> >> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do >> not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way >> Governments currently work. >> >> re: >> >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder >> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> >> >> Prefer the previous 4. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which >> point 4 starts as follows: >> > >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder >> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> > >> > My answer is yes, we would support that. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Anja >> > >> > >> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco >> Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. >> > >> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the >> past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. >> > >> > That works for me. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > >> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> > > >> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this >> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? >> > > >> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would >> > > be moot in this case? >> > > >> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or >> would >> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your >> > > perspective? >> > > >> > > Greetings, >> > > Norbert >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President >> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the >> > >> UNGA >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Your Excellency, >> > >> >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues >> > >> and would like to: >> > >> >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's >> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> > >> >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >> > >> upholds these principles. >> > >> > >> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in >> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about >> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, >> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil >> liberties >> > >> >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology >> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >> > >> >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and >> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> > >> >> > >> Signatories: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in >> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at >> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc >> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: >> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, >> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the >> > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more >> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To >> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >> > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and >> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our >> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would >> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on >> > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, >> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian >> > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> > >> information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and >> to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- 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) -- >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> > >> information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and >> to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> -- >> > >> >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> > >> @joana_varon >> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 >> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Sep 26 10:20:43 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:50:43 +0530 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: Sorry for all the extra work this will cause, but I for one would be very happy with this compromise. Many thanks to all of you who worked so hard on this letter and to help us find common ground until the very end. Best, Anja On 26 September 2013 19:38, Joana Varon wrote: > Ok. so here is what we will do. > > 1) Item 4 will be changed to: > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet > Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model > of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already > endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw > their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal > process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc supporting > the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of > the current version. > > > OK???? > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> +1 to Anja's point. >> >> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I >> am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits site >> >> From Carolina >> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email >> >> But since >> >> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure >> we have your language >> >> Not sure why we are still trying. >> >> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do >> not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way >> Governments currently work. >> >> re: >> >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder >> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> >> >> Prefer the previous 4. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which >> point 4 starts as follows: >> > >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder >> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> > >> > My answer is yes, we would support that. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Anja >> > >> > >> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco >> Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. >> > >> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the >> past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. >> > >> > That works for me. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > >> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> > > >> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this >> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? >> > > >> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would >> > > be moot in this case? >> > > >> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or >> would >> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your >> > > perspective? >> > > >> > > Greetings, >> > > Norbert >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President >> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the >> > >> UNGA >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Your Excellency, >> > >> >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues >> > >> and would like to: >> > >> >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's >> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> > >> >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that >> > >> upholds these principles. >> > >> > >> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in >> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about >> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, >> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil >> liberties >> > >> >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology >> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >> > >> >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and >> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> > >> >> > >> Signatories: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in >> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at >> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc >> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: >> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, >> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the >> > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more >> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To >> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >> > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and >> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our >> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would >> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on >> > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, >> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian >> > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> > >> information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and >> to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- 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) -- >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> > >> information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and >> to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> -- >> > >> >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> > >> @joana_varon >> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 >> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -- 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 10:21:57 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:21:57 -0400 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: :-)))) On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Sorry for all the extra work this will cause, but I for one would be very > happy with this compromise. > > Many thanks to all of you who worked so hard on this letter and to help us > find common ground until the very end. > > Best, > Anja > > > On 26 September 2013 19:38, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Ok. so here is what we will do. >> >> 1) Item 4 will be changed to: >> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet >> Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model >> of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> >> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who >> already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to >> withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not >> the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc >> supporting the statement and more important, we got your points on the >> dangerous of the current version. >> >> >> OK???? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> +1 to Anja's point. >>> >>> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I >>> am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits site >>> >>> From Carolina >>> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email >>> >>> But since >>> >>> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure >>> we have your language >>> >>> Not sure why we are still trying. >>> >>> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I >>> do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the >>> way Governments currently work. >>> >>> re: >>> >>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder >>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >>> >>> >>> Prefer the previous 4. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in >>> which point 4 starts as follows: >>> > >>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder >>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >>> > >>> > My answer is yes, we would support that. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Anja >>> > >>> > >>> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: >>> > Hi >>> > >>> > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco >>> Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. >>> > >>> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the >>> past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. >>> > >>> > That works for me. >>> > >>> > avri >>> > >>> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> > >>> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> > > >>> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this >>> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? >>> > > >>> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would >>> > > be moot in this case? >>> > > >>> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or >>> would >>> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your >>> > > perspective? >>> > > >>> > > Greetings, >>> > > Norbert >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President >>> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of >>> the >>> > >> UNGA >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Your Excellency, >>> > >> >>> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >>> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for >>> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >>> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues >>> > >> and would like to: >>> > >> >>> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >>> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's >>> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>> > >> >>> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way >>> that >>> > >> upholds these principles. >>> > >>> > >>> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in >>> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about >>> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, >>> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil >>> liberties >>> > >> >>> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >>> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which >>> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology >>> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>> > >> >>> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >>> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and >>> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>> > >> >>> > >> Signatories: >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in >>> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at >>> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc >>> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: >>> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, >>> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the >>> > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any >>> more >>> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To >>> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >>> > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >>> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and >>> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our >>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >>> > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would >>> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate >>> on >>> > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, >>> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian >>> > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ >>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >>> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other >>> list >>> > >> information and functions, see: >>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and >>> to >>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/Translate >>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> -- 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) -- >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You >>> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >>> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other >>> list >>> > >> information and functions, see: >>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and >>> to >>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/Translate >>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> -- >>> > >> -- >>> > >> >>> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> > >> @joana_varon >>> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >>> > >> >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >> >>> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >> >>> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > > >>> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > > >>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- *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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 10:22:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:22:33 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130926162233.29a8cae8@swan.bollow.ch> Joana Varon wrote: > Ok. so here is what we will do. > > 1) Item 4 will be changed to: > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet > governance, led by CGI.br", > > 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who > already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility > to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, > thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have > ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and more important, we got > your points on the dangerous of the current version. > > OK???? Sounds good to me, i.e. I'll be happy to both endorse this re-revised version personally and post a 2nd formal consensus call on the IGC list, with optimism that it'll go through. By when do need the definitive decision of IGC? (Since short-notice consensus calls are problematic, and they get more problematic the shorter the notice gets, I'd like to give as much time as possible, even if it means getting up in the middle of the night for finalization of the process.) Greetings, Norbert > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > +1 to Anja's point. > > > > with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and > > groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits > > site > > > > From Carolina > > > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email > > > > But since > > > > > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be > > > sure > > we have your language > > > > Not sure why we are still trying. > > > > Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder > > model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me > > to approve the way Governments currently work. > > > > re: > > > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > > > Internet > > Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder > > model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > > > > Prefer the previous 4. > > > > avri > > > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in > > > which > > point 4 starts as follows: > > > > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > > > Internet > > Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder > > model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > > > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Anja > > > > > > > > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the > > > Marco > > Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > > > > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process > > > of the > > past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > > > > > That works for me. > > > > > > avri > > > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to > > > > this version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections > > > > would be moot in this case? > > > > > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, > > > > or > > would > > > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from > > > > your perspective? > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to > > > >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the > > > >> 68th Session of the UNGA > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Your Excellency, > > > >> > > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around > > > >> the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > > > >> its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like > > > >> to express our strong support for the statement delivered this > > > >> week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United > > > >> Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading > > > >> role on these issues and would like to: > > > >> > > > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the > > > >> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet > > > >> Steering Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of > > > >> the Internet. > > > >> > > > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the > > > >> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da > > > >> Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. > > > > > > > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > > > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA > > > >> about the procedures of illegal interception of information > > > >> and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and > > > >> of civil liberties > > > >> > > > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres > > > >> of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > > > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, > > > >> which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific > > > >> and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on > > > >> an equal footing. > > > >> > > > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > > > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > > > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > > >> > > > >> Signatories: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and > > > >> me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep > > > >> 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs > > > >> (htc one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin > > > >> (well)" wrote: Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. > > > >> Louis - - - On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at > > > >> the same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial > > > >> edit. Any more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being > > > >> read is meagre. To be honest, I think no more than this is > > > >> necessary. – the first paragraph We, the undersigned > > > >> organizations and individuals from around the world, committed > > > >> to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing > > > >> social justice, would like to express our strong support for > > > >> the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the > > > >> 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. > > > >> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to > > > >> read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on > > > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post > > > >> Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going > > > >> to happen. Ian Peter > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all > > > >> other list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile > > > >> and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: > > > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- 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) -- > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all > > > >> other list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile > > > >> and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: > > > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > > > >> @joana_varon > > > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >> > > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >> > > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To 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 > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 10:28:23 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:28:23 -0400 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, As i said in a private note, While I find this construction worryingly vague, I am willing to stop recommending against signing. I would accept a near consensus call on this phrasing I will probably still not sign myself as I think we need to add a strong and unambiguous statement about ever moving toward well formed methods of multistakeholder governance. Thanks for the efforts. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 10:08, Joana Varon wrote: > Ok. so here is what we will do. > > 1) Item 4 will be changed to: > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of the current version. > > > OK???? > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > +1 to Anja's point. > > with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits site > > From Carolina > > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email > > But since > > > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure we have your language > > Not sure why we are still trying. > > Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way Governments currently work. > > re: > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > Prefer the previous 4. > > avri > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which point 4 starts as follows: > > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > > > Thanks, > > Anja > > > > > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi > > > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > > > That works for me. > > > > avri > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this > > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would > > > be moot in this case? > > > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would > > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your > > > perspective? > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > > >> UNGA > > >> > > >> > > >> Your Excellency, > > >> > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > > >> and would like to: > > >> > > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's > > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > >> > > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > > >> upholds these principles. > > > > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about > > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, > > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > > >> > > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology > > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > >> > > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > >> > > >> Signatories: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at > > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> > > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc > > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, > > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > >> > > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more > > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To > > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would > > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on > > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, > > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian > > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- 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) -- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >> @joana_varon > > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > > >> > > >> > > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 10:28:23 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:28:23 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> Joana Varon wrote: > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > > Email to the current endorsee sent. > > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. > Please, endorse! ;) +1 This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong showing of endorsements. 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 arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Thu Sep 26 10:29:16 2013 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:29:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1380205756.91059.YahooMailNeo@web28901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I have no comment on this. I support!   ------------------------------------------------------ Arsene Tungali, *Executive Director, Rudi International email: rudi.intl at yahoo.fr Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rudiinternational  web: www.rudiinternational.wordpress.com *Agronomy Sciences, Goma University Blog: http://tungali.blogspot.com/ Tel.: +243993810967, 853181857 Facebook-Twitter: Arsene Tungali Skype: arsenetungali Demmocratic Republic of Congo ________________________________ De : Baudouin SCHOMBE À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Louis Pouzin (well) Cc : Diego Rafael Canabarro ; Joana Varon ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Envoyé le : Jeudi 26 septembre 2013 14h47 Objet : Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Without comment, I support this initiative and endorsed the gait. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com skype                 : b.schombe blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr     2013/9/26 Louis Pouzin (well) IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >Cheers, Louis > >btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 > >- - - > > > >On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >Dear all, >>> >>>Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>> >>>Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>> >>>Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. >>> >>> >>> >>>thanks once again, >>> >>> >>>joana >>> >>> >>> >>>Letter fromInternational Civil SocietyOrganizationsto President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA  >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Your Excellency, >>> >>> >>>We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internetand its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading roleon these issuesand would like to: >>> >>> >>>1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee'sPrinciples for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>> >>> >>>2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. >>>  >>>3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties >>> >>> >>>4.Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of theexperiences from theBrazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing. >>> >>> >>>We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>> >>> >>>Signatories: >>> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From julian at colnodo.apc.org Thu Sep 26 10:38:44 2013 From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (Julian Casasbuenas G.) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:38:44 -0500 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: <524446F4.2090702@colnodo.apc.org> We endorse the statement, Julián Casasbuenas G. Colnodo - Colombia El 26/09/13 09:20, Joana Varon escribió: > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > > Email to the current endorsee sent. > > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. > Please, endorse! ;) > > Thanks for your pacience and commitment > > joana > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > Ok. so here is what we will do. > > 1) Item 4 will be changed to: > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who > already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the > posibility to withdraw their support (which I think will be > unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we > will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and > more important, we got your points on the dangerous of the current > version. > > > OK???? > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > +1 to Anja's point. > > with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and > groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the > bestbits site > > From Carolina > > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email > > But since > > > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good > to be sure we have your language > > Not sure why we are still trying. > > Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder > model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems > to me to approve the way Governments currently work. > > re: > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres > of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > Prefer the previous 4. > > avri > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the > one in which point 4 starts as follows: > > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres > of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > > > Thanks, > > Anja > > > > > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Hi > > > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to > the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the > process of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve > in the future. > > > > That works for me. > > > > avri > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to > backtrack to this > > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your > objections would > > > be moot in this case? > > > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of > point 4, or would > > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable > from your > > > perspective? > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to > President > > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th > Session of the > > >> UNGA > > >> > > >> > > >> Your Excellency, > > >> > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > around the > > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and > its use for > > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to > express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on > these issues > > >> and would like to: > > >> > > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the > occasion, in > > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering > Committee's > > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > >> > > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the > Brazilian > > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) > in a way that > > >> upholds these principles. > > > > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from > the USA about > > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information > and data, > > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of > civil liberties > > >> > > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader > spheres of > > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by > CGI.br, which > > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and > Technology > > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal > footing. > > >> > > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious > commitment to > > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > >> > > >> Signatories: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > >> > wrote: Ian is helping > Joanna and me in > > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep > 25, 2013 at > > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > >> > > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. > --srs (htc > > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin > (well)" wrote: > > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - > - On Thu, > > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer > and at the > > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial > edit. Any more > > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is > meagre. To > > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the > first > > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and > individuals from > > >> around the world, committed to the development of the > Internet and > > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to > express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those > who would > > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and > elaborate on > > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post > Snowden, > > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to > happen. Ian > > >> Peter > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the > list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all > other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your > profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- 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) -- > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ You > > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the > list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all > other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your > profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >> @joana_varon > > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > > >> > > >> > > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -- Julian Casasbuenas G. Director Colnodo Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogotá, Colombia Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264 Twitter @jcasasbuenas @colnodo www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo Miembro de la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 10:41:46 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:41:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] 2nd FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:20:15 +0200 schrieb Joana Varon : > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > > Email to the current endorsee sent. > > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. > Please, endorse! ;) [with IGC coordinator hat on] In view of a very significant consensus process already having taken place on (among other mailing lists) the IGC mailing list, the IGC will be considered to be endorsing this letter by consensus unless a timely objection against this is raised. For definitiveness, the re-revised, totally completely closed now, version of the statement is also included below. I will announce the definitive closing time for potential objections asap (as soon as I know the definitive time by when the IGC's decision is needed), in any case any objection posted before TODAY 21.00 BRT (Brasília time), that is midnight UTC, will be considered to be timely. Greetings, Norbert == letter text follows ================================================ Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA September 26, 2013 Statements Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it was conceived. 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br. We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. == letter text ends =================================================== -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 10:43:43 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:43:43 -0400 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be soon. You have around 20 hrs. C On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Joana Varon wrote: > > > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > > > > Email to the current endorsee sent. > > > > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. > > Please, endorse! ;) > > +1 > > This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong > showing of endorsements. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- *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 Thu Sep 26 10:44:35 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:44:35 -0400 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it so it also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian evening, you have around 7 hrs. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Norbert, > CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be soon. > You have around 20 hrs. > C > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Joana Varon wrote: >> >> > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ >> > >> > Email to the current endorsee sent. >> > >> > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. >> > Please, endorse! ;) >> >> +1 >> >> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong >> showing of endorsements. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > > > -- > *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 joana at varonferraz.com Thu Sep 26 10:51:06 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:51:06 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time ;) On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it so it > also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian evening, you have > around 7 hrs. > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Norbert, >> CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be soon. >> You have around 20 hrs. >> C >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ >>> > >>> > Email to the current endorsee sent. >>> > >>> > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. >>> > Please, endorse! ;) >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong >>> showing of endorsements. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *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 > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 26 10:55:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:25:25 +0530 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> Message-ID: <52444ADD.6090401@itforchange.net> On Thursday 26 September 2013 07:38 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Ok. so here is what we will do. > > 1) Item 4 will be changed to: > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance,led by CGI.br", How can one sign it without knowing what broader spheres should CGI.Br model be extended to? The criticism of Marco Civil process here tells me that the intention is that what marco civil process did - culminating in the parliament - should instead be done by CGI'Br..... That s killing democracy. If that is the intention, it should be made clear, and not be a kind of back door thing. If not so, pl tell us what other spheres are mean there. You must tell us which broader spheres do you want to extend it to.... Before one signs one needs to know By this 'broader sphere' phrase you obviously do not mean global levels, which I agreed already that it can be extended to.... If you indeed mean 'global levels' then too pl make it clear. Anja also just asked for reference to multistakeholderism in terms of global IG.... which is fine..... But why does the text go to a very old formulation which is something about extending CGI.Br model to other IG areas in Brazil, which is not discussed, neither one is very clear about... parminder > > 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who > already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to > withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats > not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, > APC, etc supporting the statement and more important, we got your > points on the dangerous of the current version. > > > OK???? > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > +1 to Anja's point. > > with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and > groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits site > > >From Carolina > > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email > > But since > > > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to > be sure we have your language > > Not sure why we are still trying. > > Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder > model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me > to approve the way Governments currently work. > > re: > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > Prefer the previous 4. > > avri > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one > in which point 4 starts as follows: > > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > > > Thanks, > > Anja > > > > > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria > wrote: > > Hi > > > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the > Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process > of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > > > That works for me. > > > > avri > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack > to this > > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections > would > > > be moot in this case? > > > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point > 4, or would > > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your > > > perspective? > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to > President > > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th > Session of the > > >> UNGA > > >> > > >> > > >> Your Excellency, > > >> > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its > use for > > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these > issues > > >> and would like to: > > >> > > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the > occasion, in > > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's > > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > >> > > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a > way that > > >> upholds these principles. > > > > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the > USA about > > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, > > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil > liberties > > >> > > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, > which > > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and > Technology > > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > >> > > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > >> > > >> Signatories: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > >> > > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, > 2013 at > > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > >> > > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs > (htc > > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" > wrote: > > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - > On Thu, > > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > >> > > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. > Any more > > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is > meagre. To > > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals > from > > >> around the world, committed to the development of the > Internet and > > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would > > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and > elaborate on > > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post > Snowden, > > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to > happen. Ian > > >> Peter > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your > profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- 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) -- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your > profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >> @joana_varon > > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > > >> > > >> > > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Sep 26 11:01:20 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:01:20 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@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 avri at acm.org Thu Sep 26 11:07:15 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:07:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Policy request Input for the IGF Message-ID: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/request-for-public-input-shaping-the-discussions Request for public input - Shaping the discussions Dear IGF Community Members, We are asking for your input to help shape the IGF discussions in a meaningful way. You may recall that the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF in its report identified the development of tangible outcomes as a way for the IGF to continue to perform successfully its intended role of addressing issues related to public policy in a bottom-up, multistakeholder fashion. The Working Group stated that "to focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates on these questions, with special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed at capacity-building, should be stated in the outcome documentation". This recommendation provides an excellent opportunity for the IGF community to engage in the process of shaping and formulating the questions that will guide the discussions during the various main and focus sessions. Reflecting on the IGF's mandate for inclusion and transparency, the IGF Secretariat is soliciting the community's views on the type of public policy questions that should be addressed and discussed at this year's IGF main/focus sessions. Each stakeholder -- individual or organisation -- is asked to submit no more than three (3) questions for each (or one) of the following sessions: - Building Bridges: The role of governments in multistakeholder cooperation; - Internet Governance principles; - Principles of multistakeholder cooperation; - Legal and other frameworks: spam, hacking and cybercrime; - Internet as an engine for growth and sustainable development; - Human rights, freedom of expression, free flow of information on the Internet; - Taking stock/Emerging Issues. Please note that the deadline for submitting your questions is 9 October. Questions should be sent to igf at unog.ch. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 11:13:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:13:11 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130926171311.689ccfeb@swan.bollow.ch> Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:51:06 +0200 schrieb Joana Varon : > The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time > > ;) CA later posted the following though: :: Hmmm... the deadline is tonight, but I've just got my plane ticket to :: Brasilia and should leave for the airport by 08:30 AM BR time :: tomorrow (Friday) morning, so we still have a few more hours time -- :: I just need time to print it and put the doc in a nice envelope, it :: would not be good ritual practice to give the prez a memory stick :) So maybe the deadline for submitting and confirming the endorsement at the BestBits site could be pushed to say 06:00 am Brazil time? (That is 9am UTC, and 18.00 in Japan where I am right now.) If this is feasible, then I'll set the IGC consensus call deadline for any further objections to 8am UTC -- still short notice but much less problematic than 8 hours earlier, as the extra hours will mean that a much larger proportion of the Caucus members will have checked their mail in time for being able to check the text of the proposed letter, and for being able to object if they come to the conclusion that for some reason IGC should absolutely not endorse. Greetings, Norbert > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it > > so it also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian > > evening, you have around 7 hrs. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini < > > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Norbert, > >> CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be > >> soon. You have around 20 hrs. > >> C > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Joana Varon wrote: > >>> > >>> > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > >>> > > >>> > Email to the current endorsee sent. > >>> > > >>> > This statement is officially totally completely closed now > >>> > folks. Please, endorse! ;) > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a > >>> strong showing of endorsements. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 11:46:26 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:46:26 +0200 Subject: Fw: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Message-ID: <20130926174626.239421ea@swan.bollow.ch> Forwarding as per Parminder's request... Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:54:53 +0530 Von: parminder An: Norbert Bollow Betreff: Fwd: Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Norbert For some reason my emails are not reaching IGC. Can you pl forward this... parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:49:51 +0530 From: parminder To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org resent since it seem not to have bene delivered the first time On Thursday 26 September 2013 08:25 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 26 September 2013 07:38 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Ok. so here is what we will do. >> >> 1) Item 4 will be changed to: >> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance,led by CGI.br", > > > How can one sign it without knowing what broader spheres should > CGI.Br model be extended to? The criticism of Marco Civil process > here tells me that the intention is that what marco civil process > did - culminating in the parliament - should instead be done by > CGI'Br..... That s killing democracy. If that is the intention, it > should be made clear, and not be a kind of back door thing. If not > so, pl tell us what other spheres are mean there. > > You must tell us which broader spheres do you want to extend it > to.... Before one signs one needs to know > > By this 'broader sphere' phrase you obviously do not mean global > levels, which I agreed already that it can be extended to.... If you > indeed mean 'global levels' then too pl make it clear. > > Anja also just asked for reference to multistakeholderism in terms of > global IG.... which is fine..... But why does the text go to a very > old formulation which is something about extending CGI.Br model to > other IG areas in Brazil, which is not discussed, neither one is very > clear about... > > > > parminder > >> >> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who >> already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility >> to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, >> thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to >> have ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and more important, we >> got your points on the dangerous of the current version. >> >> >> OK???? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> >> >> +1 to Anja's point. >> >> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and >> groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits >> site >> >> >From Carolina >> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email >> >> But since >> >> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to >> be sure we have your language >> >> Not sure why we are still trying. >> >> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder >> model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to >> me to approve the way Governments currently work. >> >> re: >> >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> >> >> Prefer the previous 4. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one >> in which point 4 starts as follows: >> > >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> > >> > My answer is yes, we would support that. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Anja >> > >> > >> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to >> the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. >> > >> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process >> of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the >> future. >> > >> > That works for me. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > >> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> > > >> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack >> to this >> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? >> > > >> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections >> would >> > > be moot in this case? >> > > >> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point >> 4, or would >> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from >> your >> > > perspective? >> > > >> > > Greetings, >> > > Norbert >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to >> President >> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th >> Session of the >> > >> UNGA >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Your Excellency, >> > >> >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> around the >> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its >> use for >> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to >> > >> express our strong support for the statement delivered this >> > >> week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United >> > >> Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a >> > >> leading role on these >> issues >> > >> and would like to: >> > >> >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >> occasion, in >> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee's >> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> > >> >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the >> > >> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da >> > >> Internet) in a >> way that >> > >> upholds these principles. >> > >> > >> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in >> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the >> USA about >> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and >> > >> data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and >> > >> of civil >> liberties >> > >> >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >> spheres of >> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by >> CGI.br, which >> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and >> Technology >> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal >> > >> footing. >> > >> >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious >> > >> commitment to social justice and development, of which an >> > >> open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> > >> >> > >> Signatories: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> > >> >> > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in >> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, >> 2013 at >> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. >> --srs (htc >> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" >> wrote: >> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - >> On Thu, >> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and >> at the >> > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. >> Any more >> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is >> meagre. To >> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the >> > >> first paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and >> individuals from >> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the >> Internet and >> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express >> > >> our strong support for the statement delivered this week by >> > >> your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations >> > >> General Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for >> > >> those who >> would >> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and >> elaborate on >> > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post >> Snowden, >> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to >> happen. Ian >> > >> Peter >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the >> list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other >> > >> list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your >> profile and to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> Translate this email: >> > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- 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) -- >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the >> list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other >> > >> list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your >> profile and to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> Translate this email: >> > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> -- >> > >> >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> > >> @joana_varon >> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> >> > >> Translate this email: >> > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Sep 26 12:03:11 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:03:11 -0300 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <20130926171311.689ccfeb@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> <20130926171311.689ccfeb@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <52445ABF.2030609@cafonso.ca> Only problem is that the signatures will have to be posted by that deadline or will not be printed... --c.a. On 09/26/2013 12:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:51:06 +0200 > schrieb Joana Varon : > >> The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time >> >> ;) > > CA later posted the following though: > > :: Hmmm... the deadline is tonight, but I've just got my plane ticket to > :: Brasilia and should leave for the airport by 08:30 AM BR time > :: tomorrow (Friday) morning, so we still have a few more hours time -- > :: I just need time to print it and put the doc in a nice envelope, it > :: would not be good ritual practice to give the prez a memory stick :) > > So maybe the deadline for submitting and confirming the endorsement at > the BestBits site could be pushed to say 06:00 am Brazil time? > (That is 9am UTC, and 18.00 in Japan where I am right now.) > > If this is feasible, then I'll set the IGC consensus call deadline > for any further objections to 8am UTC -- still short notice but much > less problematic than 8 hours earlier, as the extra hours will mean > that a much larger proportion of the Caucus members will have checked > their mail in time for being able to check the text of the proposed > letter, and for being able to object if they come to the conclusion > that for some reason IGC should absolutely not endorse. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it >>> so it also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian >>> evening, you have around 7 hrs. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Norbert, >>>> CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be >>>> soon. You have around 20 hrs. >>>> C >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Email to the current endorsee sent. >>>>>> >>>>>> This statement is officially totally completely closed now >>>>>> folks. Please, endorse! ;) >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a >>>>> strong showing of endorsements. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 12:11:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:11:01 +0200 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <52445ABF.2030609@cafonso.ca> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> <20130926171311.689ccfeb@swan.bollow.ch> <52445ABF.2030609@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20130926181101.2fc9f8ff@swan.bollow.ch> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Only problem is that the signatures will have to be posted by that > deadline or will not be printed... Ok in that case we'll have to stick to the midnight UTC deadline for trying to resolve the concern that Parminder has just raised, and for any further objections. Greetings, Norbert > On 09/26/2013 12:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:51:06 +0200 > > schrieb Joana Varon : > > > >> The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time > >> > >> ;) > > > > CA later posted the following though: > > > > :: Hmmm... the deadline is tonight, but I've just got my plane > > ticket to :: Brasilia and should leave for the airport by 08:30 AM > > BR time :: tomorrow (Friday) morning, so we still have a few more > > hours time -- :: I just need time to print it and put the doc in a > > nice envelope, it :: would not be good ritual practice to give the > > prez a memory stick :) > > > > So maybe the deadline for submitting and confirming the endorsement > > at the BestBits site could be pushed to say 06:00 am Brazil time? > > (That is 9am UTC, and 18.00 in Japan where I am right now.) > > > > If this is feasible, then I'll set the IGC consensus call deadline > > for any further objections to 8am UTC -- still short notice but much > > less problematic than 8 hours earlier, as the extra hours will mean > > that a much larger proportion of the Caucus members will have > > checked their mail in time for being able to check the text of the > > proposed letter, and for being able to object if they come to the > > conclusion that for some reason IGC should absolutely not endorse. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini < > >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize > >>> it so it also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian > >>> evening, you have around 7 hrs. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini < > >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Norbert, > >>>> CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to > >>>> be soon. You have around 20 hrs. > >>>> C > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Joana Varon wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Email to the current endorsee sent. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This statement is officially totally completely closed now > >>>>>> folks. Please, endorse! ;) > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 > >>>>> > >>>>> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a > >>>>> strong showing of endorsements. > >>>>> > >>>>> Greetings, > >>>>> Norbert > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> *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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 12:40:46 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:40:46 -0700 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <02ce01cebad7$2f372080$8da56180$@gmail.com> Amazing, from the time I was finally able to fall asleep (I'm still jet lagged) at 3.00 am to when I just now woke up (8 am) a major controversy arose and was amicably resolved 50 messages later :) (and reverting to a compromise position to which I had the pleasure of contributing some 8 or so hours earlier. :) And I'm delighted to be able to endorse (and circulate to the Community Informatics community for endorsement) this revised version which includes, as I think appropriate an endorsement of the Brazil MS experience (and practice) as a potential model for broader national and global application. For those unfamiliar with the specifics of the model perhaps it would be useful if someone from CGI could point us to some documents which elaborate on it and its history or provide us with a usable summary and description. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:51 AM To: Carolina Rossini Cc: Norbert Bollow; IGC; < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time ;) On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it so it also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian evening, you have around 7 hrs. On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Norbert, CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be soon. You have around 20 hrs. C On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Joana Varon wrote: > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > > Email to the current endorsee sent. > > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. > Please, endorse! ;) +1 This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong showing of endorsements. Greetings, Norbert -- 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 -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Sep 26 12:53:27 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:53:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] African IGF recommendations: participation in policy processes Message-ID: <52446687.6050507@apc.org> Dear all Attached are the recommendations that emerged from a 1.5 day pre-event on inclusive, participative and transparent ICT policy processes in Africa. I also attach the event programme for your information. Thanks to all who participated and who contributed through facilitating, documenting and sharing their experience and ideas. Anriette PS - These are not the recommendations of the African IGF, but they are included in large part in the African IGF 2013 recommendations. These will be shared shortly. -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AfIGF13_pre-event_Policy_process_Recommendations_Final_24092013 .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 115252 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Africa IGF2013_APC_ pre-event_program_20092013.doc Type: application/msword Size: 31232 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 26 11:19:51 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:49:51 +0530 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <52444ADD.6090401@itforchange.net> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <52444ADD.6090401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52445097.8070106@itforchange.net> resent since it seem not to have bene delivered the first time On Thursday 26 September 2013 08:25 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 26 September 2013 07:38 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Ok. so here is what we will do. >> >> 1) Item 4 will be changed to: >> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance,led by CGI.br", > > > How can one sign it without knowing what broader spheres should CGI.Br > model be extended to? The criticism of Marco Civil process here tells > me that the intention is that what marco civil process did - > culminating in the parliament - should instead be done by CGI'Br..... > That s killing democracy. If that is the intention, it should be made > clear, and not be a kind of back door thing. If not so, pl tell us > what other spheres are mean there. > > You must tell us which broader spheres do you want to extend it to.... > Before one signs one needs to know > > By this 'broader sphere' phrase you obviously do not mean global > levels, which I agreed already that it can be extended to.... If you > indeed mean 'global levels' then too pl make it clear. > > Anja also just asked for reference to multistakeholderism in terms of > global IG.... which is fine..... But why does the text go to a very > old formulation which is something about extending CGI.Br model to > other IG areas in Brazil, which is not discussed, neither one is very > clear about... > > > > parminder > >> >> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who >> already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility >> to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, >> thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have >> ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and more important, we got >> your points on the dangerous of the current version. >> >> >> OK???? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> >> >> +1 to Anja's point. >> >> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and >> groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits >> site >> >> >From Carolina >> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email >> >> But since >> >> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to >> be sure we have your language >> >> Not sure why we are still trying. >> >> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder >> model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to >> me to approve the way Governments currently work. >> >> re: >> >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> >> >> Prefer the previous 4. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one >> in which point 4 starts as follows: >> > >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> > >> > My answer is yes, we would support that. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Anja >> > >> > >> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to >> the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. >> > >> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process >> of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. >> > >> > That works for me. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > >> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> > > >> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack >> to this >> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? >> > > >> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections >> would >> > > be moot in this case? >> > > >> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point >> 4, or would >> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from >> your >> > > perspective? >> > > >> > > Greetings, >> > > Norbert >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to >> President >> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th >> Session of the >> > >> UNGA >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Your Excellency, >> > >> >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> around the >> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its >> use for >> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our >> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these >> issues >> > >> and would like to: >> > >> >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >> occasion, in >> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee's >> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> > >> >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a >> way that >> > >> upholds these principles. >> > >> > >> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in >> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the >> USA about >> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, >> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil >> liberties >> > >> >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >> spheres of >> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by >> CGI.br, which >> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and >> Technology >> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >> > >> >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to >> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and >> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> > >> >> > >> Signatories: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> > >> >> > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in >> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, >> 2013 at >> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. >> --srs (htc >> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" >> wrote: >> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - >> On Thu, >> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and >> at the >> > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. >> Any more >> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is >> meagre. To >> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first >> > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and >> individuals from >> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the >> Internet and >> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our >> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your >> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who >> would >> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and >> elaborate on >> > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post >> Snowden, >> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to >> happen. Ian >> > >> Peter >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> > >> information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your >> profile and to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- 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) -- >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list >> > >> information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your >> profile and to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate >> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> -- >> > >> >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> > >> @joana_varon >> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 14:05:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:05:54 -0700 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <52445097.8070106@itforchange.net> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <52444ADD.6090401@itforchange.net> <52445097.8070106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <035c01cebae3$12dfea50$389fbef0$@gmail.com> Parminder, I believe that I was the one who gave the final compromise formulation as per below and my reasons were as follows 1. it was meant specifically to replace a clause which univocally and without condtions endorsed MSism--something I am for reasons I outline in my blogpost on this subject unwilling to do 2. it does specify Internet Governance specifically and thus isn't as open ended as you suggest although I agree it could and should be more specific within that sphere 3. Refers to the specifics of the Brazil/CGI case which have as much (or as little) broad application as one chooses to define the Brazil/CGI experience 4. Refers to the "experiences" of the Brazil model and not to the specifics of the model itself But I take your overall point and accept that the formulation is rather overbroad and perhaps should be restated as something like "Reinforce our qualified support for an extension into selected areas of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br" (or some such. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN resent since it seem not to have bene delivered the first time On Thursday 26 September 2013 08:25 PM, parminder wrote: On Thursday 26 September 2013 07:38 PM, Joana Varon wrote: Ok. so here is what we will do. 1) Item 4 will be changed to: "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", How can one sign it without knowing what broader spheres should CGI.Br model be extended to? The criticism of Marco Civil process here tells me that the intention is that what marco civil process did - culminating in the parliament - should instead be done by CGI'Br..... That s killing democracy. If that is the intention, it should be made clear, and not be a kind of back door thing. If not so, pl tell us what other spheres are mean there. You must tell us which broader spheres do you want to extend it to.... Before one signs one needs to know By this 'broader sphere' phrase you obviously do not mean global levels, which I agreed already that it can be extended to.... If you indeed mean 'global levels' then too pl make it clear. Anja also just asked for reference to multistakeholderism in terms of global IG.... which is fine..... But why does the text go to a very old formulation which is something about extending CGI.Br model to other IG areas in Brazil, which is not discussed, neither one is very clear about... parminder 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of the current version. OK???? On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: +1 to Anja's point. with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits site >From Carolina > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email But since > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure we have your language Not sure why we are still trying. Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way Governments currently work. re: > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", Prefer the previous 4. avri On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Hi, > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which point 4 starts as follows: > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > That works for me. > > avri > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would > > be moot in this case? > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your > > perspective? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > >> > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > >> UNGA > >> > >> > >> Your Excellency, > >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > >> and would like to: > >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > >> upholds these principles. > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >> > >> Signatories: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. - the first > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain't going to happen. Ian > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > >> information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- 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) -- > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > >> information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > >> @joana_varon > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > >> > >> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 14:12:56 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:12:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] UPDATE Re: 2nd FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130926201256.71628ed7@swan.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] In view of recent discussion on the deadline-related matters, the deadline for any objections to IGC co-signing this letter can unfortunately not reasonably be extended beyond TODAY 21.00 BRT (Brasília time), which is midnight UTC. The IGC mailing list currently has very high delays in resending messages to at least some subscribers including myself. The server has no obvisous reason for being so slow, i.e. it's not unreasonably busy or anything, and there don't seem to be any obvious network problems between the IGC serbe and my own mailserver either. I'm going to try a reboot after this posting has gone through. Therefore I request that you Cc: me explicitly on any posting related to this decision process. That will in particular ensure that any objections will reach me in a timely manner regardless of how slow our mailing list server may be. Greetings, Norbert Norbert Bollow wrote: > Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:20:15 +0200 > schrieb Joana Varon : > > > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > > > > Email to the current endorsee sent. > > > > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. > > Please, endorse! ;) > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > In view of a very significant consensus process already having taken > place on (among other mailing lists) the IGC mailing list, the IGC > will be considered to be endorsing this letter by consensus unless a > timely objection against this is raised. > > For definitiveness, the re-revised, totally completely closed now, > version of the statement is also included below. > > I will announce the definitive closing time for potential objections > asap (as soon as I know the definitive time by when the IGC's decision > is needed), in any case any objection posted before TODAY 21.00 BRT > (Brasília time), that is midnight UTC, will be considered to be > timely. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > == letter text follows > ================================================ > > Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > UNGA September 26, 2013 Statements > > Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals > from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet > and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to > express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by > your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > and would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s > Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way > that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and > democratic process in which it was conceived. > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and > demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal > interception > of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human > rights > and of civil liberties > 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable > Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > == letter text ends > =================================================== -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 26 14:15:11 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:15:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] African IGF recommendations: participation in policy processes In-Reply-To: <52446687.6050507@apc.org> References: <52446687.6050507@apc.org> Message-ID: <5C9EDF44-2A37-47C6-B6E7-A2585894580C@gmail.com> Dear Anriette, Thank you for sharing this with us and it is great to see the views and recommendations that have come through from the African IGF. Best Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Sep 26, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > Attached are the recommendations that emerged from a 1.5 day pre-event > on inclusive, participative and transparent ICT policy processes in Africa. > > I also attach the event programme for your information. > > Thanks to all who participated and who contributed through facilitating, > documenting and sharing their experience and ideas. > > Anriette > > PS - These are not the recommendations of the African IGF, but they are > included in large part in the African IGF 2013 recommendations. These > will be shared shortly. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 14:31:53 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:31:53 -0700 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <035c01cebae3$12dfea50$389fbef0$@gmail.com> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <52444ADD.6090401@itforchange.net> <52445097.8070106@itforchange.net> <035c01cebae3$12dfea50$389fbef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5D4500A3-46DA-442D-A4E8-7644B7730497@gmail.com> Hi Michael's revision ensures that we are selective and it also protects us as civil society. I support his edits, that is, "Reinforce our qualified support for an extension into selected areas of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br" (or some such…" In any case, tremendous work by all those who held the pen, initiated action and contributed through remarks. All the best with the advocacy. I had given my endorsement (in person and not as the IGC until consensus is reached) many threads ago and still support the letter and the spirit in which this is being made. Great work ! With every best wish, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:05 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Parminder, I believe that I was the one who gave the final compromise formulation as per below and my reasons were as follows > 1. it was meant specifically to replace a clause which univocally and without condtions endorsed MSism--something I am for reasons I outline in my blogpost on this subject unwilling to do > 2. it does specify Internet Governance specifically and thus isn't as open ended as you suggest although I agree it could and should be more specific within that sphere > 3. Refers to the specifics of the Brazil/CGI case which have as much (or as little) broad application as one chooses to define the Brazil/CGI experience > 4. Refers to the "experiences" of the Brazil model and not to the specifics of the model itself > > But I take your overall point and accept that the formulation is rather overbroad and perhaps should be restated as something like > "Reinforce our qualified support for an extension into selected areas of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br" (or some such… > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:20 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > > resent since it seem not to have bene delivered the first time > > On Thursday 26 September 2013 08:25 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 26 September 2013 07:38 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Ok. so here is what we will do. > > 1) Item 4 will be changed to: > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > How can one sign it without knowing what broader spheres should CGI.Br model be extended to? The criticism of Marco Civil process here tells me that the intention is that what marco civil process did - culminating in the parliament - should instead be done by CGI'Br..... That s killing democracy. If that is the intention, it should be made clear, and not be a kind of back door thing. If not so, pl tell us what other spheres are mean there. > > You must tell us which broader spheres do you want to extend it to.... Before one signs one needs to know > > By this 'broader sphere' phrase you obviously do not mean global levels, which I agreed already that it can be extended to.... If you indeed mean 'global levels' then too pl make it clear. > > Anja also just asked for reference to multistakeholderism in terms of global IG.... which is fine..... But why does the text go to a very old formulation which is something about extending CGI.Br model to other IG areas in Brazil, which is not discussed, neither one is very clear about... > > > > parminder > > > > 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of the current version. > > > OK???? > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > +1 to Anja's point. > > with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits site > > >From Carolina > > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email > > But since > > > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure we have your language > > Not sure why we are still trying. > > Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way Governments currently work. > > re: > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > Prefer the previous 4. > > avri > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which point 4 starts as follows: > > > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", > > > > My answer is yes, we would support that. > > > > Thanks, > > Anja > > > > > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi > > > > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. > > > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future. > > > > That works for me. > > > > avri > > > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this > > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? > > > > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would > > > be moot in this case? > > > > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would > > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your > > > perspective? > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > > >> UNGA > > >> > > >> > > >> Your Excellency, > > >> > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for > > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > > >> and would like to: > > >> > > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's > > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > > >> > > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that > > >> upholds these principles. > > > > > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in > > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about > > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, > > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties > > >> > > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which > > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology > > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. > > >> > > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to > > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and > > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > >> > > >> Signatories: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > >> wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in > > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at > > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> > > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc > > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, > > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > >> > > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the > > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more > > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre. To > > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first > > >> paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from > > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and > > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our > > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your > > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > > >> Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for those who would > > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on > > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, > > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen. Ian > > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- 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) -- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, > > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list > > >> information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate > > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz > > >> @joana_varon > > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 > > >> > > >> > > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 26 14:57:18 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:57:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] UPDATE Re: 2nd FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <20130926201256.71628ed7@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130926201256.71628ed7@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <9F02482A-F652-474E-81E6-306D54B03F11@gmail.com> Hi Norbert, Given the time constraints, i have endorsed in person. Should others feel that this is something the IGC can have rough consensus on, they should say, "aye" or if they disagree, they can say "nay". I say "yay" Kind Regards, Sala P.S once it has been sent to the President, I will send the link to our Embassy in Brazil as well as the Foreign Affairs office in Fiji. I would recommend that others do the same with a covering letter to their Embassies or Consulates in Brazil. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > In view of recent discussion on the deadline-related matters, the > deadline for any objections to IGC co-signing this letter can > unfortunately not reasonably be extended beyond TODAY 21.00 BRT > (Brasília time), which is midnight UTC. > > The IGC mailing list currently has very high delays in resending > messages to at least some subscribers including myself. The server has > no obvisous reason for being so slow, i.e. it's not unreasonably busy or > anything, and there don't seem to be any obvious network problems > between the IGC serbe and my own mailserver either. I'm going to try a > reboot after this posting has gone through. > > Therefore I request that you Cc: me explicitly on any posting related > to this decision process. That will in particular ensure that any > objections will reach me in a timely manner regardless of how slow our > mailing list server may be. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:20:15 +0200 >> schrieb Joana Varon : >> >>> Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ >>> >>> Email to the current endorsee sent. >>> >>> This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. >>> Please, endorse! ;) >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> In view of a very significant consensus process already having taken >> place on (among other mailing lists) the IGC mailing list, the IGC >> will be considered to be endorsing this letter by consensus unless a >> timely objection against this is raised. >> >> For definitiveness, the re-revised, totally completely closed now, >> version of the statement is also included below. >> >> I will announce the definitive closing time for potential objections >> asap (as soon as I know the definitive time by when the IGC's decision >> is needed), in any case any objection posted before TODAY 21.00 BRT >> (Brasília time), that is midnight UTC, will be considered to be >> timely. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> == letter text follows >> ================================================ >> >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the >> UNGA September 26, 2013 Statements >> >> Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals >> from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet >> and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to >> express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by >> your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues >> and would like to: >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way >> that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and >> democratic process in which it was conceived. >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal >> interception >> of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human >> rights >> and of civil liberties >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br. >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable >> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> >> == letter text ends >> =================================================== > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Thu Sep 26 15:13:44 2013 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:13:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] UPDATE Re: 2nd FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <9F02482A-F652-474E-81E6-306D54B03F11@gmail.com> Message-ID: Too late for me to have my NGO endorse it. I have tried to endorse in person but that was too late too. I say "yay" Divina Le 26/09/13 20:57, « Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro » a écrit : > Hi Norbert, > > Given the time constraints, i have endorsed in person. Should others feel that > this is something the IGC can have rough consensus on, they should say, "aye" > or if they disagree, they can say "nay". > > I say "yay" > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > P.S once it has been sent to the President, I will send the link to our > Embassy in Brazil as well as the Foreign Affairs office in Fiji. I would > recommend that others do the same with a covering letter to their Embassies or > Consulates in Brazil. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> In view of recent discussion on the deadline-related matters, the >> deadline for any objections to IGC co-signing this letter can >> unfortunately not reasonably be extended beyond TODAY 21.00 BRT >> (Brasília time), which is midnight UTC. >> >> The IGC mailing list currently has very high delays in resending >> messages to at least some subscribers including myself. The server has >> no obvisous reason for being so slow, i.e. it's not unreasonably busy or >> anything, and there don't seem to be any obvious network problems >> between the IGC serbe and my own mailserver either. I'm going to try a >> reboot after this posting has gone through. >> >> Therefore I request that you Cc: me explicitly on any posting related >> to this decision process. That will in particular ensure that any >> objections will reach me in a timely manner regardless of how slow our >> mailing list server may be. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:20:15 +0200 >>> schrieb Joana Varon : >>> >>>> Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ >>>> >>>> Email to the current endorsee sent. >>>> >>>> This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. >>>> Please, endorse! ;) >>> >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> In view of a very significant consensus process already having taken >>> place on (among other mailing lists) the IGC mailing list, the IGC >>> will be considered to be endorsing this letter by consensus unless a >>> timely objection against this is raised. >>> >>> For definitiveness, the re-revised, totally completely closed now, >>> version of the statement is also included below. >>> >>> I will announce the definitive closing time for potential objections >>> asap (as soon as I know the definitive time by when the IGC's decision >>> is needed), in any case any objection posted before TODAY 21.00 BRT >>> (Brasília time), that is midnight UTC, will be considered to be >>> timely. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> == letter text follows >>> ================================================ >>> >>> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President >>> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the >>> UNGA September 26, 2013 Statements >>> >>> Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals >>> from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet >>> and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to >>> express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by >>> your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >>> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues >>> and would like to: >>> >>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee¹s >>> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >>> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way >>> that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and >>> democratic process in which it was conceived. >>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal >>> interception >>> of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human >>> rights >>> and of civil liberties >>> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br. >>> >>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social >>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable >>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>> >>> == letter text ends >>> =================================================== >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 babatope at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 15:14:03 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:14:03 +0100 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <1380205756.91059.YahooMailNeo@web28901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1380205756.91059.YahooMailNeo@web28901.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I support On Sep 26, 2013 4:40 PM, "Arsene TUNGALI" wrote: > > I have no comment on this. I support! > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Arsene Tungali, > *Executive Director, > Rudi International > email: rudi.intl at yahoo.fr > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rudiinternational > web: www.rudiinternational.wordpress.com > > *Agronomy Sciences, Goma University > Blog: http://tungali.blogspot.com/ > Tel.: +243993810967, 853181857 > Facebook-Twitter: Arsene Tungali > Skype: arsenetungali > Demmocratic Republic of Congo > > ________________________________ > De : Baudouin SCHOMBE > À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Louis Pouzin (well) > Cc : Diego Rafael Canabarro ; Joana Varon < joana at varonferraz.com>; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Envoyé le : Jeudi 26 septembre 2013 14h47 > Objet : Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN > > Without comment, I support this initiative and endorsed the gait. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC > COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC > COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > > > 2013/9/26 Louis Pouzin (well) >> >> IMHO it would be better without parag 4. >> Cheers, Louis >> >> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3 >> - - - >> >> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. >>>> >>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. >>>> >>>> Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. >>>> >>>> thanks once again, >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA >>>> >>>> >>>> Your Excellency, >>>> >>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: >>>> >>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >>>> >>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. >>>> >>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties >>>> >>>> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing. >>>> >>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >>>> >>>> Signatories: >>>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amessinoukossi at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 16:11:52 2013 From: amessinoukossi at gmail.com (Kossi Amessinou) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:11:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] African IGF recommendations: participation in policy processes In-Reply-To: <52446687.6050507@apc.org> References: <52446687.6050507@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you Anriette for sharing! 2013/9/26 Anriette Esterhuysen > Dear all > > Attached are the recommendations that emerged from a 1.5 day pre-event > on inclusive, participative and transparent ICT policy processes in Africa. > > I also attach the event programme for your information. > > Thanks to all who participated and who contributed through facilitating, > documenting and sharing their experience and ideas. > > Anriette > > PS - These are not the recommendations of the African IGF, but they are > included in large part in the African IGF 2013 recommendations. These > will be shared shortly. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > -- AMESSINOU Kossi Ingénieur TIC ICT Engineer Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 skype: amessinou @amessinou @bigf http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou Que Dieu vous bénisse Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracey at traceynaughton.com Thu Sep 26 19:15:19 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:15:19 +1000 Subject: [governance] African IGF recommendations: participation in policy processes In-Reply-To: <52446687.6050507@apc.org> References: <52446687.6050507@apc.org> Message-ID: <707A32C6-E38A-44AA-B551-21A5AED98D7F@traceynaughton.com> Thanks Anriette, well done all who attended. I particularly like the scorecard approach to monitoring progress by African governments. Tracey Naughton Australia Landline: +(613) 5470 6853 Mobile: +(61) 0413 019707 Skype: tnaughton9999 On 27 Sep 2013, at 2:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear all Attached are the recommendations that emerged from a 1.5 day pre-event on inclusive, participative and transparent ICT policy processes in Africa. I also attach the event programme for your information. Thanks to all who participated and who contributed through facilitating, documenting and sharing their experience and ideas. Anriette PS - These are not the recommendations of the African IGF, but they are included in large part in the African IGF 2013 recommendations. These will be shared shortly. -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Thu Sep 26 20:51:50 2013 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:51:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] UPDATE Re: 2nd FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: References: <9F02482A-F652-474E-81E6-306D54B03F11@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, I said "yay" too! 2013/9/26 Divina MEIGS > Too late for me to have my NGO endorse it. I have tried to endorse in > person > but that was too late too. > I say "yay" > Divina > > > > Le 26/09/13 20:57, « Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro » > a écrit : > > > Hi Norbert, > > > > Given the time constraints, i have endorsed in person. Should others > feel that > > this is something the IGC can have rough consensus on, they should say, > "aye" > > or if they disagree, they can say "nay". > > > > I say "yay" > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > P.S once it has been sent to the President, I will send the link to our > > Embassy in Brazil as well as the Foreign Affairs office in Fiji. I would > > recommend that others do the same with a covering letter to their > Embassies or > > Consulates in Brazil. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >> > >> In view of recent discussion on the deadline-related matters, the > >> deadline for any objections to IGC co-signing this letter can > >> unfortunately not reasonably be extended beyond TODAY 21.00 BRT > >> (Brasília time), which is midnight UTC. > >> > >> The IGC mailing list currently has very high delays in resending > >> messages to at least some subscribers including myself. The server has > >> no obvisous reason for being so slow, i.e. it's not unreasonably busy or > >> anything, and there don't seem to be any obvious network problems > >> between the IGC serbe and my own mailserver either. I'm going to try a > >> reboot after this posting has gone through. > >> > >> Therefore I request that you Cc: me explicitly on any posting related > >> to this decision process. That will in particular ensure that any > >> objections will reach me in a timely manner regardless of how slow our > >> mailing list server may be. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >>> Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:20:15 +0200 > >>> schrieb Joana Varon : > >>> > >>>> Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > >>>> > >>>> Email to the current endorsee sent. > >>>> > >>>> This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks. > >>>> Please, endorse! ;) > >>> > >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>> > >>> In view of a very significant consensus process already having taken > >>> place on (among other mailing lists) the IGC mailing list, the IGC > >>> will be considered to be endorsing this letter by consensus unless a > >>> timely objection against this is raised. > >>> > >>> For definitiveness, the re-revised, totally completely closed now, > >>> version of the statement is also included below. > >>> > >>> I will announce the definitive closing time for potential objections > >>> asap (as soon as I know the definitive time by when the IGC's decision > >>> is needed), in any case any objection posted before TODAY 21.00 BRT > >>> (Brasília time), that is midnight UTC, will be considered to be > >>> timely. > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> == letter text follows > >>> ================================================ > >>> > >>> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > >>> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > >>> UNGA September 26, 2013 Statements > >>> > >>> Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals > >>> from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet > >>> and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to > >>> express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by > >>> your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > >>> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > >>> and would like to: > >>> > >>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > >>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee¹s > >>> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > >>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > >>> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way > >>> that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and > >>> democratic process in which it was conceived. > >>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and > >>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal > >>> interception > >>> of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human > >>> rights > >>> and of civil liberties > >>> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > >>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > >>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br. > >>> > >>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > >>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable > >>> Internet is a fundamental pillar. > >>> > >>> == letter text ends > >>> =================================================== > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Departamento de Geografia Humana *Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Sep 26 21:05:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:35:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BIP=5D_Google=E2=80=99s_Gmail_Key?= =?UTF-8?Q?word_Scanning_Might_Violate_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Finds?= References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: David Farber > Date: 27 September 2013 4:42:47 IST > To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Dewayne Hendricks > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate =?windows-1252?Q?_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Finds_= > Date: September 26, 2013 5:41:26 PM EDT > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by > Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com > > Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds > By DAVID KRAVETS > 09.26.13 > > > A federal judge today found that Google may have breached federal and California wiretapping laws for machine-scanning Gmail messages as part of its business model to create user profiles and provide targeted advertising. > > The decision by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh was rendered in a proposed class-action alleging Google wiretaps Gmail as part of its business model. Google sought to have the federal case in California dismissed under a section of the Wiretap Act that authorizes email providers to intercept messages if the interception facilitated the message’s delivery or was incidental to the functioning of the service in general. > > “Accordingly, the statutory scheme suggests that Congress did not intend to allow electronic communication service providers unlimited leeway to engage in any interception that would benefit their business models, as Google contends. In fact, this statutory provision would be superfluous if the ordinary course of business exception were as broad as Google suggests,” Judge Koh wrote. > > Gmail, including its business service called Google Apps, is the world’s biggest email service, with some 450 million users globally. > > The decision is also a blow to Yahoo, whose free email platform with more than 300 million users also scans email to deliver ads. Microsoft’s rebranded free Outlook webmail offering does not scan messages of its 400 million users. > > It was the second time this month that a federal court has found Google potentially liable for wiretapping. > > Just yesterday, Google asked a federal appeals court to reconsider a recent ruling finding Google potentially on the hook for wiretapping when it secretly intercepted data on open Wi-Fi routers. > > The Mountain View-based company said the September 10 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will create “confusion” about which over-the-air signals are protected by the Wiretap Act, including broadcast television. > > That case concerns nearly a dozen combined lawsuits seeking damages from Google for eavesdropping on open Wi-Fi networks from its Street View mapping cars. The vehicles, which rolled through neighborhoods around the world, were equipped with Wi-Fi–sniffing hardware to record the names and MAC addresses of routers to improve Google location-specific services. But the cars also gathered snippets of content. > > The search giant yesterday petitioned the San Francisco-based appeals court to reconsider its decision that allowed the case to proceed at trial — a ruling that upended Google’s defense. > > Like the appeals court ruling, Judge Koh’s decision guts Google’s wiretapping defense in the Gmail case. > > No trial date has been set. > > “The ruling means federal and state wiretap laws apply to the internet. It’s a tremendous victory for online privacy. Companies like Google can’t simply do whatever they want with our data and emails,” said Jon Simpson, the privacy director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, California. > > [snip] > > > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > David Farber > > Carnegie Mellon University > Adjunct Professor of Internet Studies > > University of Pennsylvania > Alfred Fitler Moore Emeritus Professor of Telecommunications > > Cell: +1-412-726-9889 > Email: dave at farber.net > > Public Key Fingerprint: 2133 594F 87C6 DC11 8BCD 6897 F46C 3C84 91C7 03FA > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 26 21:17:58 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:47:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BIP=5D_Google=E2=80=99s_Gmail?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Keyword_Scanning_Might_Violate_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Finds?= In-Reply-To: <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> This could be a big judgement, contributing to jurisprudence on and with regard to the Internet.. States and big business have unilaterally begun to treat private content transmitted on the Internet differently than content that is transmitted over phone or by post in terms of its complete privacy... This is a wrong reading, but states and big business - both wanting access to private info - are in cahoots to make this inappropriate interpretation. The neutrality of the carriers must be restored. They should make their money by just getting paid for carriage or putting up ads around the carriage system - but not by tapping into the monetary value of private data/ information parminder On Friday 27 September 2013 06:35 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > --srs (iPad) > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From:* David Farber > >> *Date:* 27 September 2013 4:42:47 IST >> *To:* "ip" > >> *Subject:* *[IP] Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate >> Wiretap Law, Judge Finds* >> *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Dewayne Hendricks > > >> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate >> =?windows-1252?Q?_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Finds_= >> Date: September 26, 2013 5:41:26 PM EDT >> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by >> > >> Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com >> >> Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds >> By DAVID KRAVETS >> 09.26.13 >> >> >> A federal judge today found that Google may have breached federal and >> California wiretapping laws for machine-scanning Gmail messages as >> part of its business model to create user profiles and provide >> targeted advertising. >> >> The decision by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh was rendered in a >> proposed class-action alleging Google wiretaps Gmail as part of its >> business model. Google sought to have the federal case in California >> dismissed under a section of the Wiretap Act that authorizes email >> providers to intercept messages if the interception facilitated the >> message’s delivery or was incidental to the functioning of the >> service in general. >> >> “Accordingly, the statutory scheme suggests that Congress did not >> intend to allow electronic communication service providers unlimited >> leeway to engage in any interception that would benefit their >> business models, as Google contends. In fact, this statutory >> provision would be superfluous if the ordinary course of business >> exception were as broad as Google suggests,” Judge Koh wrote. >> >> Gmail, including its business service called Google Apps, is the >> world’s biggest email service, with some 450 million users globally. >> >> The decision is also a blow to Yahoo, whose free email platform with >> more than 300 million users also scans email to deliver ads. >> Microsoft’s rebranded free Outlook webmail offering does not scan >> messages of its 400 million users. >> >> It was the second time this month that a federal court has found >> Google potentially liable for wiretapping. >> >> Just yesterday, Google asked a federal appeals court to reconsider a >> recent ruling finding Google potentially on the hook for wiretapping >> when it secretly intercepted data on open Wi-Fi routers. >> >> The Mountain View-based company said the September 10 decision by the >> 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will create “confusion” about which >> over-the-air signals are protected by the Wiretap Act, including >> broadcast television. >> >> That case concerns nearly a dozen combined lawsuits seeking damages >> from Google for eavesdropping on open Wi-Fi networks from its Street >> View mapping cars. The vehicles, which rolled through neighborhoods >> around the world, were equipped with Wi-Fi–sniffing hardware to >> record the names and MAC addresses of routers to improve Google >> location-specific services. But the cars also gathered snippets of >> content. >> >> The search giant yesterday petitioned the San Francisco-based appeals >> court to reconsider its decision that allowed the case to proceed at >> trial — a ruling that upended Google’s defense. >> >> Like the appeals court ruling, Judge Koh’s decision guts Google’s >> wiretapping defense in the Gmail case. >> >> No trial date has been set. >> >> “The ruling means federal and state wiretap laws apply to the >> internet. It’s a tremendous victory for online privacy. Companies >> like Google can’t simply do whatever they want with our data and >> emails,” said Jon Simpson, the privacy director for Consumer Watchdog >> of Santa Monica, California. >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: >> >> >> >> David Farber >> >> Carnegie Mellon University >> Adjunct Professor of Internet Studies >> >> University of Pennsylvania >> Alfred Fitler Moore Emeritus Professor of Telecommunications >> >> Cell: +1-412-726-9889 >> Email: dave at farber.net >> >> Public Key Fingerprint: 2133 594F 87C6 DC11 8BCD 6897 F46C 3C84 91C7 03FA >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 21:41:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 03:41:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: 2nd FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] The consensus call has passed. IGC's endorsement is already reflected on http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ Greetings, Norbert > == letter text follows > ================================================ > > Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President > Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the > UNGA September 26, 2013 Statements > > Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals > from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet > and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to > express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by > your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General > Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues > and would like to: > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in > clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s > Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. > 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian > Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way > that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and > democratic process in which it was conceived. > 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and > demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal > interception of information and data, framing it as a grave > violation of human rights and of civil liberties > 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of > Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br. > > We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social > justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable > Internet is a fundamental pillar. > > == letter text ends > =================================================== -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 26 22:05:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:35:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: 2nd FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Letter to Pres. Rousseff In-Reply-To: <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> Thanks Norbert I did not oppose the call, but now that it is over, I must restate the reason that I have this particular issue with the statement, which I partly co-initiated. I think that when a drafter introduces a language like 'should extend to broader sphere' , on being asked to clarify. those who are for that language must clarify what is meant. This did not happen. I was stuck by some people actually opposing Marco Civil process, just because it is a parliamentary democratic process. They withdrew this opposition when the phrase on 'CGI's remit should be extended to broader spheres' was reintroduced. That for me formed the background of the 'should extend to broader spheres' phrase. It is like this. If someone wants me to sign on a statement for strenghtening the judiciary in India, I will sign it. But if it pointedly says, judiciary's role and remit should extend 'to broader spheres' no serious political, democratic, civil society group in India will sign it. They would like to know what exactly is meant here. For instance, we wont have the judiciary second guessing core policy issues, appointing the prime minister, unilaterally impeaching members of parliament and so on..... Clarity and separation of roles of different institutions is basic to democracy.... But I see here a version of multistakeholderism, which has un-reined belief in a mutistakeholder body doing anything and everything, and correspondingly no belef at all in represenative structures. This is outstandingly dangerous. Lets not for some small gains fiddle with our democratic traditions and institutions. They are hard earned, by blood and toil of many down the history. So, now that the statement is passed. I would still like to know, what is that CGI'Br should be doing more in Brazil, in terms of the unclear 'broader sphere'.... It is likely that if I know what is it clearly, I may agree. But, It cannot take up the public policy making competence of the parliament. Let people make this point clear, and ITfC will still sign the statement. On the other hand, if some actual incursion on parliament's role iis indeed intended in the statement, then that must also be stated clearly. We cannot be in these civil society deliberative space keeping silent on such key issues. BTW, is it being asked that CGI takes up some regulatory role (for instance, instead of Anatel which claims regulatory comeptence over the Internet). We must know what is it we are referring to here. Otherwise, sorry to say, the phrase to me just looks a convenient 'backdoor' for all kind of possible things, a term made infamous by the recent NSA disclosures :). parminder On Friday 27 September 2013 07:11 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > The consensus call has passed. > > IGC's endorsement is already reflected on http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > > Greetings, > Norbert > >> == letter text follows >> ================================================ >> >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the >> UNGA September 26, 2013 Statements >> >> Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals >> from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet >> and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to >> express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by >> your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues >> and would like to: >> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way >> that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and >> democratic process in which it was conceived. >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and >> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal >> interception of information and data, framing it as a grave >> violation of human rights and of civil liberties >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br. >> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable >> Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> >> == letter text ends >> =================================================== > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Thu Sep 26 22:25:40 2013 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:25:40 +0700 Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5244ECA4.7000005@gmx.net> Thanks - I did not get it earlier, but I hope from my Cambodia time zone I am still within the deadline *Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time. * Norbert Klein Kep Cambodia = -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:44:17 +0200 From: Joana Varon Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Joana Varon To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Dear all, Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions. Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. * * thanks once again, joana *Letter from**International C**ivil Society**Organizations****to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA * Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internetand its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading roleon these issuesand would like to: 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles. 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of theexperiences from theBrazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing. We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. Signatories: [snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 26 22:53:15 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 04:53:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] What "extension into broader spheres" do we support precisely? (was Re: 2nd FORMAL..) In-Reply-To: <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > I think that when a drafter introduces a language like 'should extend > to broader sphere' , on being asked to clarify. those who are for > that language must clarify what is meant. This did not happen. While I strongly agree with this call for accountability, what I think is most important for IGC is that we need to become clear on what precisely is the scope of our “support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br”. I understand that this was an intentionally fuzzy wording, with the fuzziness having been driven by the need to have a letter text finalized and endorsed within a rushed timeframe that was driven by the current political opportunity in Brazil. But now that we are not under this time pressure anymore, it will be good to work out what the specific aspects or kinds of “extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br” are precisely that we have consensus or rough consensus support for. I personally certainly would not support any kind of “extension into broader spheres” that would make a multistakeholder process replace a parliamentary democratic process. But it seems to me for example that some aspects of the CGI.br approach to multistakeholderism would be worth looking at when reforming the ICANN model. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 06:28:47 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:28:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BIP=5D_Google=92s_Gmai?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?l_Keyword_Scanning_Might_Violate_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Fi?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?nds?= In-Reply-To: <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:17 PM, parminder wrote: > This could be a big judgement, contributing to jurisprudence on and with > regard to the Internet.. > > States and big business have unilaterally begun to treat private content > transmitted on the Internet differently than content that is transmitted > over phone or by post in terms of its complete privacy... This is a wrong > reading, but states and big business - both wanting access to private info - > are in cahoots to make this inappropriate interpretation. > > The neutrality of the carriers must be restored. They should make their > money by just getting paid for carriage Agreed. This would be optimal. or putting up ads around the > carriage system - but not by tapping into the monetary value of private > data/ information Is Google a "carrrier"? In Kansas City they are of course, but I doubt you will be able to persuade any judge that they are (outside Google Fiber). -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Sep 27 08:59:19 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:59:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter to President - Review [was - 2nd FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Letter to Pr, etc]. In-Reply-To: <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 09:47:54 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:47:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Have a nice day NSA Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/opinion/have-a-nice-day-nsa.html?hp -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 11:45:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:45:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. Message-ID: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> May be of interest to some. I'm not a techie but my understanding is that techies take from below that no obvious technical solution to PRISM is feasible! M Title : Prismatic Reflections Author(s) : Brian Carpenter Filename : draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2013-09-19 Abstract: Recent public disclosure of allegedly pervasive surveillance of Internet traffic has led to calls for action by the IETF. This draft exists solely to collect together a number of possible actions that were mentioned in a vigorous discussion on the IETF mailing list. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 27 12:07:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 21:37:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. In-Reply-To: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> References: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <141602c8f38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> This is the 'there is no silver bullet' argument civil society will have heard in a variety of presentations across sectors. --srs (htc one x) On 27 September 2013 9:15:08 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > May be of interest to some. > > > I'm not a techie but my understanding is that techies take from below that > no obvious technical solution to PRISM is feasible! > > > > M > > > > Title : Prismatic Reflections > > Author(s) : Brian Carpenter > > Filename : > draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt > > Pages : 9 > > Date : 2013-09-19 > > > > Abstract: > > Recent public disclosure of allegedly pervasive surveillance of > > Internet traffic has led to calls for action by the IETF. This draft > > exists solely to collect together a number of possible actions that > > were mentioned in a vigorous discussion on the IETF mailing list. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 12:14:08 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:14:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. In-Reply-To: <141602c8f38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> <141602c8f38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > This is the 'there is no silver bullet' argument civil society will have > heard in a variety of presentations across sectors. And the IETF does not "thnk" monolithicaly. There will be a spectrum of viewpoints inside the IETF as diverse as its participants. It is not an "organisation" per se, rather a group of volunteers (altho recently it has more of a secretariat than in previous decades. -- 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 Fri Sep 27 15:26:18 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:26:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study Findings Webinar Invitation References: Message-ID: <9CBCDC21-9B41-4B6F-B8AE-C843A9DDE0A0@gmail.com> This is going to be a very interesting Webinar and the study should be interesting as well. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: ICANN At-Large Staff > Date: September 27, 2013 at 10:53:31 AM GMT-7 > To: "alac-announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org" > Subject: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study Findings Webinar Invitation > > > > [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg] > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27sep13-en.htm > > ________________________________ > ICANN Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study Findings Webinar Invitation > > 27 September 2013 > > In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. > > You are invited to participate in a webinar about the recently released Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study, conducted for ICANN by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in the United Kingdom. This study has now been published for public comment, and community feedback is being invited in order to assist ICANN with evaluating potential changes to Whois policy and the use of privacy/proxy services. > > The study was commissioned by the GNSO to help the ICANN community understand the role that privacy and proxy service abuse plays in obscuring the identities of parties engaged in illegal or harmful activities, including phishing, cybersquatting, hosting child abuse sexual images, advanced fee fraud, and the online sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. NPL was engaged to analyze domain names across the top five gTLDs - .biz, .com, .info, .net and .org – to measure whether the percentage of privacy/proxy use among domains engaged in illegal or harmful Internet activities is significantly greater than among domain names used for lawful Internet activities. > > NPL's chief investigator on the study, Dr. Richard Clayton of the University of Cambridge, and ICANN staff will provide a briefing on Tuesday 15 October at 12.00 UTC and 19.00 UTC, summarizing NPL's findings and conclusions based on the data they collected and analyzed. Amongst other topics, Dr. Clayton will discuss: > > * NPL's methodology for the study and the hypothesis tested; > * The different project activities and work packages undertaken for the study; > * NPL's statistical analysis of the data sampled for the study, including comparative differences observed by the research team; and > * NPL's conclusions based on the results of its analysis. > > The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for sixty (60) minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. > > Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may also be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff at icann.org. > > In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join on Tuesday 15 October – at 12.00 UTC or at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff member's e-mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 27 16:06:58 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:06:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study Findings Webinar Invitation In-Reply-To: <9CBCDC21-9B41-4B6F-B8AE-C843A9DDE0A0@gmail.com> References: <9CBCDC21-9B41-4B6F-B8AE-C843A9DDE0A0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0DE31825-357B-4201-821A-7078992A906C@gmail.com> Here is the link to the Draft Study Findings: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm > On Sep 27, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > This is going to be a very interesting Webinar and the study should be interesting as well. > > Sent from my iPad > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: ICANN At-Large Staff >> Date: September 27, 2013 at 10:53:31 AM GMT-7 >> To: "alac-announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org" >> Subject: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study Findings Webinar Invitation >> >> >> >> [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg] >> News Alert >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27sep13-en.htm >> >> ________________________________ >> ICANN Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study Findings Webinar Invitation >> >> 27 September 2013 >> >> In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. >> >> You are invited to participate in a webinar about the recently released Whois Privacy/Proxy Abuse Study, conducted for ICANN by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in the United Kingdom. This study has now been published for public comment, and community feedback is being invited in order to assist ICANN with evaluating potential changes to Whois policy and the use of privacy/proxy services. >> >> The study was commissioned by the GNSO to help the ICANN community understand the role that privacy and proxy service abuse plays in obscuring the identities of parties engaged in illegal or harmful activities, including phishing, cybersquatting, hosting child abuse sexual images, advanced fee fraud, and the online sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. NPL was engaged to analyze domain names across the top five gTLDs - .biz, .com, .info, .net and .org – to measure whether the percentage of privacy/proxy use among domains engaged in illegal or harmful Internet activities is significantly greater than among domain names used for lawful Internet activities. >> >> NPL's chief investigator on the study, Dr. Richard Clayton of the University of Cambridge, and ICANN staff will provide a briefing on Tuesday 15 October at 12.00 UTC and 19.00 UTC, summarizing NPL's findings and conclusions based on the data they collected and analyzed. Amongst other topics, Dr. Clayton will discuss: >> >> * NPL's methodology for the study and the hypothesis tested; >> * The different project activities and work packages undertaken for the study; >> * NPL's statistical analysis of the data sampled for the study, including comparative differences observed by the research team; and >> * NPL's conclusions based on the results of its analysis. >> >> The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for sixty (60) minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. >> >> Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may also be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff at icann.org. >> >> In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join on Tuesday 15 October – at 12.00 UTC or at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff member's e-mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 27 17:01:14 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:01:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: photo.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 53690 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- sent from a dumbphone -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caffsouza at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 17:09:49 2013 From: caffsouza at gmail.com (Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:09:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That charming old gray suit... Many thanks for that, Carlos Afonso! If you've managed to get any comments or reactions, please let us know later on. 2013/9/27 Carlos A. Afonso > > > > > > > sent from a dumbphone > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 17:10:42 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 21:10:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great! From: ca at cafonso.ca Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:01:14 -0300 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery sent from a dumbphone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From julian at colnodo.apc.org Fri Sep 27 17:12:53 2013 From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (Julian Casasbuenas G.) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:12:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5245F4D5.3090701@colnodo.apc.org> Great compa! Julián El 27/09/13 16:01, Carlos A. Afonso escribió: > > > > > > sent from a dumbphone -- Julian Casasbuenas G. Director Colnodo Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogotá, Colombia Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264 Twitter @jcasasbuenas @colnodo www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo Miembro de la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 17:22:10 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:22:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: what did she say, if anything? On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > > > > > sent from a dumbphone > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 27 17:50:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 03:20:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5245FDAC.2090702@itforchange.net> Thanks Carlos I would think that Dilma's UN speech marks a somewhat historic moment in global IG. Also historic is the wide support from global civil society for her speech. Dilma's speech is historic in marking Brazil's return to the very forefront of progressive politics in global governance of the Internet. This will begin to considerably shift the landscape. A new focal point of progressive leadership was badly needed to disrupt the artificially created and sustained bipolarity between the 'freedom loving' US allies on one side and you-know-what China, Russia et al on the other (and everyone else be damned). Brazil is likely to (re)emerge as that focal point. The widespread civil society support to Dilma's speech was rather spontaneous, and somewhat unexpected. It too could in itself mark a historic turn - of civil society returning to the real politics of global governance arena, after having resided in somewhat rarefied and unreal atmospherics for quite some time, especially since the end of the WSIS. We will preserve this picture as marking those historic points :). (I agree that Carlos suit completely outshines Dilma's normally impeccable attire :) ) parminder On Saturday 28 September 2013 02:31 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > > > > sent from a dumbphone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 27 17:52:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 03:22:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: What "extension into broader spheres" do we support precisely? (was Re: 2nd FORMAL..) In-Reply-To: <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5245FE19.5020303@itforchange.net> On Friday 27 September 2013 08:23 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> I think that when a drafter introduces a language like 'should extend >> to broader sphere' , on being asked to clarify. those who are for >> that language must clarify what is meant. This did not happen. > While I strongly agree with this call for accountability, what I think > is most important for IGC is that we need to become clear on what > precisely is the scope of our “support for an extension into broader > spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian > multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br”. > > I understand that this was an intentionally fuzzy wording, with the > fuzziness having been driven by the need to have a letter text finalized > and endorsed within a rushed timeframe that was driven by the current > political opportunity in Brazil. > > But now that we are not under this time pressure anymore, it will be > good to work out what the specific aspects or kinds of “extension into > broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the > Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br” > are precisely that we have consensus or rough consensus support for. > > I personally certainly would not support any kind of “extension into > broader spheres” that would make a multistakeholder process replace a > parliamentary democratic process. > > But it seems to me for example that some aspects of the CGI.br approach > to multistakeholderism would be worth looking at when reforming the > ICANN model. If that is the implication of point 4, I strongly support it, and of course the full statement. parminder > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Sep 27 18:00:54 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:00:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] What "extension into broader spheres" do we support precisely? (was Re: 2nd FORMAL..) In-Reply-To: <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <25AD1966-B509-4936-B4C6-7DC449003F19@ella.com> On 26 Sep 2013, at 22:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > But it seems to me for example that some aspects of the CGI.br approach > to multistakeholderism would be worth looking at when reforming the > ICANN model. I would be interested in seeing a parallel analysis of the two models. Leaving out the part where a government entity makes the final decisions or is the highest arbtrar, I would be interested in looking at this model for ICANN improvements. Given I consider myself rather well versed in the ICANN model, I would be happy to work with someone equally knowledgeable of the CGI.br model to produce a comparative analysis that could be used for improvements in the model. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Fri Sep 27 18:03:28 2013 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:03:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] What "extension into broader spheres" do we support precisely? (was Re: 2nd FORMAL..) In-Reply-To: <25AD1966-B509-4936-B4C6-7DC449003F19@ella.com> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> <25AD1966-B509-4936-B4C6-7DC449003F19@ella.com> Message-ID: <524600B0.6090900@cgi.br> Avri, This person you would be happy to work with ... is Carlos Afonso ...! Hartmut -------------------------------------------------- On 9/27/13 7:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 26 Sep 2013, at 22:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> But it seems to me for example that some aspects of the CGI.br approach >> to multistakeholderism would be worth looking at when reforming the >> ICANN model. > > I would be interested in seeing a parallel analysis of the two models. Leaving out the part where a government entity makes the final decisions or is the highest arbtrar, I would be interested in looking at this model for ICANN improvements. > > Given I consider myself rather well versed in the ICANN model, I would be happy to work with someone equally knowledgeable of the CGI.br model to produce a comparative analysis that could be used for improvements in the model. > > avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Sep 27 18:06:53 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:06:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] What "extension into broader spheres" do we support precisely? (was Re: 2nd FORMAL..) In-Reply-To: <524600B0.6090900@cgi.br> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> <25AD1966-B509-4936-B4C6-7DC449003F19@ella.com> <524600B0.6090900@cgi.br> Message-ID: <64B1ECF9-D3B4-4E36-A535-AC065B790F08@ella.com> Cool. Thought ti might be. Are you volunteering him? avri On 27 Sep 2013, at 18:03, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > Avri, > > This person you would be happy to work with ... is Carlos Afonso ...! > > Hartmut > -------------------------------------------------- > On 9/27/13 7:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 22:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> >>> But it seems to me for example that some aspects of the CGI.br approach >>> to multistakeholderism would be worth looking at when reforming the >>> ICANN model. >>> >> >> I would be interested in seeing a parallel analysis of the two models. Leaving out the part where a government entity makes the final decisions or is the highest arbtrar, I would be interested in looking at this model for ICANN improvements. >> >> Given I consider myself rather well versed in the ICANN model, I would be happy to work with someone equally knowledgeable of the CGI.br model to produce a comparative analysis that could be used for improvements in the model. >> >> avri >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 27 18:14:34 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 03:44:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BIP=5D_Google=E2=80=99s_Gmail?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Keyword_Scanning_Might_Violate_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Finds?= In-Reply-To: References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> On Friday 27 September 2013 03:58 PM, McTim wrote: SNIP > Is Google a "carrrier"? In Kansas City they are of course, but I doubt > you will be able to persuade any judge that they are (outside Google > Fiber). Yes, an email application service provider is a carrier of private emails, in the same sense as postal service is for snail mail. It should be subject to rights and restrictions of a neutral carrier. But while Google claims the rights of a carrier - in terms of claiming exemption from any intermediary liability, they do not admit the corresponding restrictions, for instance, that they cannot look into private communication, and monetise information thus collected. parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at cgi.br Fri Sep 27 18:16:52 2013 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:16:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] What "extension into broader spheres" do we support precisely? (was Re: 2nd FORMAL..) In-Reply-To: <64B1ECF9-D3B4-4E36-A535-AC065B790F08@ella.com> References: <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch> <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch> <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net> <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch> <25AD1966-B509-4936-B4C6-7DC449003F19@ella.com> <524600B0.6090900@cgi.br> <64B1ECF9-D3B4-4E36-A535-AC065B790F08@ella.com> Message-ID: <524603D4.3020107@cgi.br> Yes ...;-) !!! ------------------------------------------------- On 9/27/13 7:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Cool. > > Thought ti might be. > Are you volunteering him? > > avri > > > On 27 Sep 2013, at 18:03, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > >> Avri, >> >> This person you would be happy to work with ... is Carlos Afonso ...! >> >> Hartmut >> -------------------------------------------------- >> On 9/27/13 7:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 22:53, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> >>>> But it seems to me for example that some aspects of the CGI.br approach >>>> to multistakeholderism would be worth looking at when reforming the >>>> ICANN model. >>>> >>> I would be interested in seeing a parallel analysis of the two models. Leaving out the part where a government entity makes the final decisions or is the highest arbtrar, I would be interested in looking at this model for ICANN improvements. >>> >>> Given I consider myself rather well versed in the ICANN model, I would be happy to work with someone equally knowledgeable of the CGI.br model to produce a comparative analysis that could be used for improvements in the model. >>> >>> avri >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 18:27:24 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:27:24 +1200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BIP=5D_Google=E2=80=99s_Gmail?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Keyword_Scanning_Might_Violate_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Finds?= In-Reply-To: <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6BC8954F-E487-45CC-9B10-AD7DECDDCE13@gmail.com> interesting....by the way can google be classed as a type of access provider? Sent from my iPad > On Sep 27, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > --srs (iPad) > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: David Farber >> Date: 27 September 2013 4:42:47 IST >> To: "ip" >> Subject: [IP] Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds >> Reply-To: dave at farber.net >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Dewayne Hendricks >> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate =?windows-1252?Q?_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Finds_= >> Date: September 26, 2013 5:41:26 PM EDT >> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by >> Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com >> >> Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds >> By DAVID KRAVETS >> 09.26.13 >> >> >> A federal judge today found that Google may have breached federal and California wiretapping laws for machine-scanning Gmail messages as part of its business model to create user profiles and provide targeted advertising. >> >> The decision by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh was rendered in a proposed class-action alleging Google wiretaps Gmail as part of its business model. Google sought to have the federal case in California dismissed under a section of the Wiretap Act that authorizes email providers to intercept messages if the interception facilitated the message’s delivery or was incidental to the functioning of the service in general. >> >> “Accordingly, the statutory scheme suggests that Congress did not intend to allow electronic communication service providers unlimited leeway to engage in any interception that would benefit their business models, as Google contends. In fact, this statutory provision would be superfluous if the ordinary course of business exception were as broad as Google suggests,” Judge Koh wrote. >> >> Gmail, including its business service called Google Apps, is the world’s biggest email service, with some 450 million users globally. >> >> The decision is also a blow to Yahoo, whose free email platform with more than 300 million users also scans email to deliver ads. Microsoft’s rebranded free Outlook webmail offering does not scan messages of its 400 million users. >> >> It was the second time this month that a federal court has found Google potentially liable for wiretapping. >> >> Just yesterday, Google asked a federal appeals court to reconsider a recent ruling finding Google potentially on the hook for wiretapping when it secretly intercepted data on open Wi-Fi routers. >> >> The Mountain View-based company said the September 10 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will create “confusion” about which over-the-air signals are protected by the Wiretap Act, including broadcast television. >> >> That case concerns nearly a dozen combined lawsuits seeking damages from Google for eavesdropping on open Wi-Fi networks from its Street View mapping cars. The vehicles, which rolled through neighborhoods around the world, were equipped with Wi-Fi–sniffing hardware to record the names and MAC addresses of routers to improve Google location-specific services. But the cars also gathered snippets of content. >> >> The search giant yesterday petitioned the San Francisco-based appeals court to reconsider its decision that allowed the case to proceed at trial — a ruling that upended Google’s defense. >> >> Like the appeals court ruling, Judge Koh’s decision guts Google’s wiretapping defense in the Gmail case. >> >> No trial date has been set. >> >> “The ruling means federal and state wiretap laws apply to the internet. It’s a tremendous victory for online privacy. Companies like Google can’t simply do whatever they want with our data and emails,” said Jon Simpson, the privacy director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, California. >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: >> >> >> >> David Farber >> >> Carnegie Mellon University >> Adjunct Professor of Internet Studies >> >> University of Pennsylvania >> Alfred Fitler Moore Emeritus Professor of Telecommunications >> >> Cell: +1-412-726-9889 >> Email: dave at farber.net >> >> Public Key Fingerprint: 2133 594F 87C6 DC11 8BCD 6897 F46C 3C84 91C7 03FA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 27 18:44:08 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 04:14:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BIP=5D_Google=E2=80=99s_Gmail?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Keyword_Scanning_Might_Violate_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Finds?= In-Reply-To: <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2AE69E84-72C9-4BC5-A5B3-3FFBE66E2673@hserus.net> You are talking past each other A common carrier is a different beast altogether under US law. Generally a status telcos have, not service peoviders. Intermediary liability and safe harbor are under other provisions altogether, see 47 USC 230 --srs (iPad) > On 28-Sep-2013, at 3:44, parminder wrote: > > >> On Friday 27 September 2013 03:58 PM, McTim wrote: >> SNIP >> Is Google a "carrrier"? In Kansas City they are of course, but I doubt you will be able to persuade any judge that they are (outside Google Fiber). > > Yes, an email application service provider is a carrier of private emails, in the same sense as postal service is for snail mail. It should be subject to rights and restrictions of a neutral carrier. But while Google claims the rights of a carrier - in terms of claiming exemption from any intermediary liability, they do not admit the corresponding restrictions, for instance, that they cannot look into private communication, and monetise information thus collected. > > parminder > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Fri Sep 27 19:00:08 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:00:08 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: <5245FDAC.2090702@itforchange.net> References: <5245FDAC.2090702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: :) Lovelly. Thanks, Carlos. And thank you all for the ideas, commitment and understanding. Looking forward for any reactions/comments. happy cheers joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:50 PM, parminder wrote: > Thanks Carlos > > I would think that Dilma's UN speech marks a somewhat historic moment in > global IG. Also historic is the wide support from global civil society for > her speech. > > Dilma's speech is historic in marking Brazil's return to the very > forefront of progressive politics in global governance of the Internet. > This will begin to considerably shift the landscape. A new focal point of > progressive leadership was badly needed to disrupt the artificially created > and sustained bipolarity between the 'freedom loving' US allies on one side > and you-know-what China, Russia et al on the other (and everyone else be > damned). Brazil is likely to (re)emerge as that focal point. > > The widespread civil society support to Dilma's speech was rather > spontaneous, and somewhat unexpected. It too could in itself mark a > historic turn - of civil society returning to the real politics of global > governance arena, after having resided in somewhat rarefied and unreal > atmospherics for quite some time, especially since the end of the WSIS. > > We will preserve this picture as marking those historic points :). (I > agree that Carlos suit completely outshines Dilma's normally impeccable > attire :) ) > > parminder > > > On Saturday 28 September 2013 02:31 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > > sent from a dumbphone > > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bavouc at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 19:49:04 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 00:49:04 +0100 Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN In-Reply-To: <20130926174626.239421ea@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130926174626.239421ea@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <025c01cebbdc$2957eb30$7c07c190$@gmail.com> I support -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 4:46 PM To: IGC Subject: Fw: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Forwarding as per Parminder's request... Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:54:53 +0530 Von: parminder An: Norbert Bollow Betreff: Fwd: Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Norbert For some reason my emails are not reaching IGC. Can you pl forward this... parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:49:51 +0530 From: parminder To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org resent since it seem not to have bene delivered the first time On Thursday 26 September 2013 08:25 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 26 September 2013 07:38 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Ok. so here is what we will do. >> >> 1) Item 4 will be changed to: >> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance,led by CGI.br", > > > How can one sign it without knowing what broader spheres should CGI.Br > model be extended to? The criticism of Marco Civil process here tells > me that the intention is that what marco civil process did - > culminating in the parliament - should instead be done by CGI'Br..... > That s killing democracy. If that is the intention, it should be made > clear, and not be a kind of back door thing. If not so, pl tell us > what other spheres are mean there. > > You must tell us which broader spheres do you want to extend it to.... > Before one signs one needs to know > > By this 'broader sphere' phrase you obviously do not mean global > levels, which I agreed already that it can be extended to.... If you > indeed mean 'global levels' then too pl make it clear. > > Anja also just asked for reference to multistakeholderism in terms of > global IG.... which is fine..... But why does the text go to a very > old formulation which is something about extending CGI.Br model to > other IG areas in Brazil, which is not discussed, neither one is very > clear about... > > > > parminder > >> >> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who >> already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility >> to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, >> thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have >> ICG, APC, etc supporting the statement and more important, we got >> your points on the dangerous of the current version. >> >> >> OK???? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> >> >> +1 to Anja's point. >> >> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and >> groups I am a member of, and will sign it myself on the bestbits >> site >> >> >From Carolina >> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email >> >> But since >> >> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to >> be sure we have your language >> >> Not sure why we are still trying. >> >> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder >> model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to >> me to approve the way Governments currently work. >> >> re: >> >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> >> >> Prefer the previous 4. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one >> in which point 4 starts as follows: >> > >> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br", >> > >> > My answer is yes, we would support that. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Anja >> > >> > >> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Yes, i would, I did, accept that, as it balances support to >> the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance. >> > >> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process >> of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the >> future. >> > >> > That works for me. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > >> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> > > >> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack >> to this >> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter? >> > > >> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections >> would >> > > be moot in this case? >> > > >> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point >> 4, or would >> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from >> your >> > > perspective? >> > > >> > > Greetings, >> > > Norbert >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to >> President >> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th >> Session of the >> > >> UNGA >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Your Excellency, >> > >> >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from >> around the >> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its >> use for >> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to >> > >> express our strong support for the statement delivered this >> > >> week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United >> > >> Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a >> > >> leading role on these >> issues >> > >> and would like to: >> > >> >> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the >> occasion, in >> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee's >> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. >> > >> >> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the >> > >> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da >> > >> Internet) in a >> way that >> > >> upholds these principles. >> > >> > >> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in >> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the >> USA about >> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of information and >> > >> data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and >> > >> of civil >> liberties >> > >> >> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader >> spheres of >> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian >> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by >> CGI.br, which >> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and >> Technology >> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal >> > >> footing. >> > >> >> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious >> > >> commitment to social justice and development, of which an >> > >> open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. >> > >> >> > >> Signatories: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> > >> >> > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in >> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, >> 2013 at >> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. >> --srs (htc >> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" >> wrote: >> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - >> On Thu, >> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and >> at the >> > >> same time worse. I think it needs a very substantial edit. >> Any more >> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is >> meagre. To >> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the >> > >> first paragraph We, the undersigned organizations and >> individuals from >> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the >> Internet and >> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express >> > >> our strong support for the statement delivered this week by >> > >> your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations >> > >> General Assembly. (reference the speech if you wish for >> > >> those who >> would >> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and >> elaborate on >> > >> it). And specifically I dont think we need to talk post >> Snowden, >> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to >> happen. Ian >> > >> Peter >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the >> list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other >> > >> list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your >> profile and to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> Translate this email: >> > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- 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) -- >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the >> list, >> > >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other >> > >> list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your >> profile and to >> > >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> Translate this email: >> > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> -- >> > >> >> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> > >> @joana_varon >> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> >> > >> Translate this email: >> > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 20:34:04 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 20:34:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Carlos, Muito bonito :-) Big hugs De On 27 September 2013 17:01, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > > > > > sent from a dumbphone > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 21:03:40 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:03:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wonderful, Carlos! Thank you for that! Let us know how she reacted. Btw, she came back to Twitter today (she has been away since the elections). A good presage? ;) Marília On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Carlos, > Muito bonito :-) > Big hugs > De > > > On 27 September 2013 17:01, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sent from a dumbphone >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Sep 27 21:08:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 03:08:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130928030801.48dfdbfd@swan.bollow.ch> Congratulations, Carlos, and everyone else who has contributed to making this happen!!! 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 21:12:13 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego R. Canabarro) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:12:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proof of delivery In-Reply-To: <20130928030801.48dfdbfd@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130928030801.48dfdbfd@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Awesome. Was the press around, CA? -- Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel Sent from mobile device > Em 27/09/2013, às 22:08, Norbert Bollow escreveu: > > Congratulations, Carlos, and everyone else who has contributed to > making this happen!!! > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Sep 27 21:53:13 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 03:53:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. In-Reply-To: References: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> <141602c8f38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130928035313.0136a3b3@swan.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > And the IETF does not "thnk" monolithicaly. There will be a spectrum > of viewpoints inside the IETF as diverse as its participants. I would recommend to everyone interested in learning what this spectrum currently is, and to anyone who would like to contribute to the development of technical solutions to the problem of pervasive passive surveillance, to join this mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 27 21:55:10 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 21:55:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BIP=5D_Google=92s_Gmai?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?l_Keyword_Scanning_Might_Violate_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Fi?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?nds?= In-Reply-To: <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:14 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 27 September 2013 03:58 PM, McTim wrote: > SNIP > >> Is Google a "carrrier"? In Kansas City they are of course, but I doubt you >> will be able to persuade any judge that they are (outside Google Fiber). > > > Yes, an email application service provider is a carrier of private emails, > in the same sense as postal service is for snail mail. It should be subject > to rights and restrictions of a neutral carrier. Maybe....if i paid them and didn't agree when I signed up that they could do exactly that....but I don't pay them AND did agree to let them scan the words in my emails. But while Google claims the > rights of a carrier - in terms of claiming exemption from any intermediary > liability, of course, because it is user-generated content. Would you prefer that intermediate liability be removed?? they do not admit the corresponding restrictions, for instance, > that they cannot look into private communication, and monetise information > thus collected. see above, this is the deal you make with them. -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Sep 28 04:49:10 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:49:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. In-Reply-To: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> References: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Sep 28 04:48:36 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:48:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. In-Reply-To: References: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> <141602c8f38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: At 18:14 27/09/2013, McTim wrote: >On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > This is the 'there is no silver bullet' argument civil society will have > > heard in a variety of presentations across sectors. > >And the IETF does not "thnk" monolithicaly. There will be a spectrum >of viewpoints inside the IETF as diverse as its participants. It is >not an "organisation" per se, rather a group of volunteers (altho >recently it has more of a secretariat than in previous decades. A "secretariat"? This is an interesting point of view. Do you mean by that they tend to endorse external propositions? or that the technology is developped enough to act as rails that IETF is to follow? or that in becoming an ISOC affilitate, and now adhering to OpenStand they lost independency (and possibly IAB wisdom and/or guidance)? Or something else? Would you suggest that RFC 3774 ('ETF problem statement") should be updated? Best jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Sep 28 08:07:15 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:07:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. In-Reply-To: <52469813.c3e00e0a.60d4.57cfSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> <141602c8f38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52469813.c3e00e0a.60d4.57cfSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:48 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 18:14 27/09/2013, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> > This is the 'there is no silver bullet' argument civil society will have >> > heard in a variety of presentations across sectors. >> >> And the IETF does not "thnk" monolithicaly. There will be a spectrum >> of viewpoints inside the IETF as diverse as its participants. It is >> not an "organisation" per se, rather a group of volunteers (altho >> recently it has more of a secretariat than in previous decades. > > > A "secretariat"? This is an interesting point of view. > > Do you mean by that they tend to endorse external propositions? or that the > technology is developped enough to act as rails that IETF is to follow? or > that in becoming an ISOC affilitate, and now adhering to OpenStand they lost > independency (and possibly IAB wisdom and/or guidance)? Or something else? Something else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_(administrative_office) -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Sep 28 12:27:08 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:27:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] reporting to base... Message-ID: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca> Dear people, First of all, thank you for the lively dialogue and the support for the letter to President Rousseff. She was quite happy to receive a congrats letter from CGI.br on her UN speech, and thrilled when I handed our letter telling her it was signed by more than 50 national and international CSOs in support of her statement at the UN. And we managed to do it in two days! Getting a warm hug from this valiant woman is no small thing, so I am still recovering from that crucial meeting. Attached is the PDF version of our document as delivered to her in print. I have to mention that in her discourse on Friday (the occasion was the launching of the new Portal Brasil -- brasil.gov.br --, still in beta) she taught us that, in relation to e-gov processes, each one of us should be just the same individual, while the government is many instances and different bureaucratic processes, and tends to treat us as different people every time we need different services. So, Rousseff said, the government ought to recognize this and treat each citizen as the same individual who does not need to go through strenuous specific procedures in order to obtain online government services. This is the design philosophy of the new Portal Brasil. Besides top ministers, the whole technical staff of Portal Brasil was at the meeting. fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: letter_ISOs_dilma_rousseff_20130926.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 104141 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Sep 28 12:29:53 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:29:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52470401.90107@cafonso.ca> Hi dear Carol, the right link is this: http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35003&sid=4#.UkcDoLOm1q8 Although there was a literal press army at the event, I did not know they would take this. Fantastic! []s fraternos --c.a. On 09/28/2013 01:24 PM, Carolina wrote: > http://www.convergenciadigital.uol.br/ > Dilma ganha apoio internacional por criticar EUA e defender Internet > > Sent from my iPhone > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Sep 28 12:42:45 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:42:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] reporting to base... In-Reply-To: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca> References: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thank you Carlos. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Sep 28, 2013 5:28 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Dear people, > > First of all, thank you for the lively dialogue and the support for the > letter to President Rousseff. > > She was quite happy to receive a congrats letter from CGI.br on her UN > speech, and thrilled when I handed our letter telling her it was signed > by more than 50 national and international CSOs in support of her > statement at the UN. And we managed to do it in two days! > > Getting a warm hug from this valiant woman is no small thing, so I am > still recovering from that crucial meeting. > > Attached is the PDF version of our document as delivered to her in print. > > I have to mention that in her discourse on Friday (the occasion was the > launching of the new Portal Brasil -- brasil.gov.br --, still in beta) > she taught us that, in relation to e-gov processes, each one of us > should be just the same individual, while the government is many > instances and different bureaucratic processes, and tends to treat us as > different people every time we need different services. > > So, Rousseff said, the government ought to recognize this and treat each > citizen as the same individual who does not need to go through strenuous > specific procedures in order to obtain online government services. This > is the design philosophy of the new Portal Brasil. > > Besides top ministers, the whole technical staff of Portal Brasil was at > the meeting. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Sep 28 12:47:20 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:47:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media! In-Reply-To: <52470401.90107@cafonso.ca> References: <52470401.90107@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0a7d01cebc6a$66aa5fc0$33ff1f40$@gmail.com> Here via GoogleTranslate is a translation of the statement (perhaps one of our Portuguese speaking colleagues might like to correct this for broader circulation. M Dilma wins international support for criticizing U.S. and defend Internet Luis Osvaldo Grossmann :: Digital Convergence :: 27.09.2013 :: When claiming espionage and defend the Internet open, neutral and multi-stakeholder governance in his speech at the UN , Dilma Rousseff garnered attention and allies . In a letter to be delivered on Friday , 27/9 , 58 organizations from 14 countries , including the United States , expressing " strong support " to the words of the president . In the letter , which can also be signed online ( bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga ) , institutions like consummers International , Electronic Frontier Foundation , Amnesty International , WWW Foundation , Nupef , Free Software Association and FGV " uplift " that Dilma has " taken a leadership role in these matters ." " We endorse fully the five principles set out in clear agreement with the principles hallmarks of governance and use of the Internet in Brazil , we emphasize the importance of adopting the Marco Civil Internet , laud the courage to disapprove Brazil and charge U.S. explanations on interception illegal data and information, " the letter says. In case, Dilma listed freedom of expression , privacy multilateral governance , cultural diversity and network neutrality . How did you describe on his Twitter the 'father ' of the Internet in Brazil , and a member of CGI , Demi Getschko " Dilma practically read the Decalogue of the CGI in the opening of the UN " . Also according to what he told President Dilma on Tuesday in New York , the document , which also has individual subscriptions , argues that the Brazilian model of governance , similar to the Internet Management Committee in Brazil , " is extended to wider spheres . " See the full text of the ' letter of international organizations of civil society to President Dilma Rousseff to support the speech at the 68th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations ' : " We, the undersigned organizations and individuals around the world , committed to the development of the Internet and advances in its use for social and economic justice , we would like to express our strong support for the speech made this week by his Excellency the 68th session of the Assembly general of the United Nations . We praise you for taking a leadership role on these issues and would like to : 1. Fully endorse the five principles set out at the time , in clear agreement with the principles of the Brazilian Steering Committee for the governance and use of the Internet ; 2 . To underscore the importance of timely adoption of the Marco Civil Internet in the way that supports these principles and endorse the innovative and democratic process by which it was designed . " 3 . Praise the courage of Brazil expressing disapproval and U.S. demand explanations on the procedures of unlawful interception of information and data , framing them as a serious violation of human rights and civil liberties ; 4 . Strengthen our support for the extension to wider spheres of governance of the Internet experience of Brazilian multistakeholder model of governance, led by CGI.br. We express our deep appreciation for their serious commitment to social justice and development , including an open Internet , stable and reliable is a cornerstone . " Read the document : http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:30 AM To: Carolina; ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC Subject: Re: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media! Hi dear Carol, the right link is this: http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35003&sid=4#.UkcDoLOm1q8 Although there was a literal press army at the event, I did not know they would take this. Fantastic! []s fraternos --c.a. On 09/28/2013 01:24 PM, Carolina wrote: > http://www.convergenciadigital.uol.br/ > Dilma ganha apoio internacional por criticar EUA e defender Internet > > Sent from my iPhone > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Sep 28 18:35:10 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:35:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds In-Reply-To: References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00b601cebc9b$0481eee0$0d85cca0$@gmail.com> I think a lot of people are rather more anxious now than previously with the "deal" that they signed up for with Gmail but the problem is to find workable alternatives... Given their resources and monopolistic behanviour (predatory pricing?) Gmail seem to have pushed most of the possible althernative services out of the market (at least for the moment... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 6:55 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:14 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 27 September 2013 03:58 PM, McTim wrote: > SNIP > >> Is Google a "carrrier"? In Kansas City they are of course, but I >> doubt you will be able to persuade any judge that they are (outside Google Fiber). > > > Yes, an email application service provider is a carrier of private > emails, in the same sense as postal service is for snail mail. It > should be subject to rights and restrictions of a neutral carrier. Maybe....if i paid them and didn't agree when I signed up that they could do exactly that....but I don't pay them AND did agree to let them scan the words in my emails. But while Google claims the > rights of a carrier - in terms of claiming exemption from any > intermediary liability, of course, because it is user-generated content. Would you prefer that intermediate liability be removed?? they do not admit the corresponding restrictions, for instance, > that they cannot look into private communication, and monetise > information thus collected. see above, this is the deal you make with them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Sep 28 18:52:33 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:52:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds In-Reply-To: <00b601cebc9b$0481eee0$0d85cca0$@gmail.com> References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> <00b601cebc9b$0481eee0$0d85cca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I think a lot of people are rather more anxious now than previously with the > "deal" that they signed up for with Gmail but the problem is to find > workable alternatives... Given their resources and monopolistic behanviour > (predatory pricing?) Gmail seem to have pushed most of the possible > althernative services out of the market (at least for the moment... nonsense. I Googled "free email", and got 10 alternatives on the first page alone...with Gmail coming in at #8 on the list. Googling for "leading free email service" gives this result: http://email.about.com/od/freeemailreviews/tp/free_email.htm in which Gmail is listed as #1, this means that people like the service, not that there are no other options. Monopoly is defined on Wikipedia as: "A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly This is not the case with any service from Google that I can think of. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Sep 28 18:58:00 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:58:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. In-Reply-To: References: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> <141602c8f38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 27 Sep 2013, at 12:14, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> This is the 'there is no silver bullet' argument civil society will have >> heard in a variety of presentations across sectors. > > And the IETF does not "thnk" monolithicaly. There will be a spectrum > of viewpoints inside the IETF as diverse as its participants. It is > not an "organisation" per se, rather a group of volunteers (altho > recently it has more of a secretariat than in previous decades. And not only does the IETF not think monolithically,I expect the solution will not be a single bullet. The solution will be complex, will be evolutionary, and will need to deal with every more clever attacks, by governments and others. I expect the solution will evolve as a set of ever easier actions that users and others can take to protect themselves. I expect the solution will involve actions at every layer and eventual changes to most software. It is a Sisyphean task, but one that I expect will done with great zeal and devotion by the engineers of IETF and elsewhere. And not to dismiss our policy efforts. We will need to continue to try and protect ourselves with policy and the rule of law from all those who want to invade our privacy. But as long as any government anywhere can act with virtual impunity and place themselves above the rule of law, I am not sure what policy will achieve, though we have to continue trying. Stopping governments from trampling on peoples' rights and getting them to actually uphold rights as it is their international law based duty, is a much larger struggle than Internet governance. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Sep 28 19:08:46 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:08:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds In-Reply-To: References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> <00b601cebc9b$0481eee0$0d85cca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: my gmail address is on only one of the more than 10 email address I have. some i pay for, some i don't. avri On 28 Sep 2013, at 18:52, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I think a lot of people are rather more anxious now than previously with the >> "deal" that they signed up for with Gmail but the problem is to find >> workable alternatives... Given their resources and monopolistic behanviour >> (predatory pricing?) Gmail seem to have pushed most of the possible >> althernative services out of the market (at least for the moment... > > > nonsense. I Googled "free email", and got 10 alternatives on the > first page alone...with Gmail coming in at #8 on the list. > > > Googling for "leading free email service" gives this result: > > http://email.about.com/od/freeemailreviews/tp/free_email.htm > > in which Gmail is listed as #1, this means that people like the > service, not that there are no other options. > > Monopoly is defined on Wikipedia as: > > "A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν > (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only > supplier of a particular commodity" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly > > This is not the case with any service from Google that I can think of. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Sep 28 19:16:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:16:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds In-Reply-To: References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> <00b601cebc9b$0481eee0$0d85cca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00d801cebca0$ba5e3b10$2f1ab130$@gmail.com> Google (now) #1 free email service. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57543177-93/gmail-edges-hotmail-as-worlds-top-e-mail-service/ M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 3:53 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I think a lot of people are rather more anxious now than previously > with the "deal" that they signed up for with Gmail but the problem is > to find workable alternatives... Given their resources and > monopolistic behanviour (predatory pricing?) Gmail seem to have pushed > most of the possible althernative services out of the market (at least for the moment... nonsense. I Googled "free email", and got 10 alternatives on the first page alone...with Gmail coming in at #8 on the list. Googling for "leading free email service" gives this result: http://email.about.com/od/freeemailreviews/tp/free_email.htm in which Gmail is listed as #1, this means that people like the service, not that there are no other options. Monopoly is defined on Wikipedia as: "A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly This is not the case with any service from Google that I can think of. -- 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 katitza at eff.org Sat Sep 28 19:25:39 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:25:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] reporting to base... In-Reply-To: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca> References: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52476573.9050601@eff.org> sounds like a unique ID for egovt purposes! :D On 9/28/13 12:27 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > So, Rousseff said, the government ought to recognize this and treat each > citizen as the same individual who does not need to go through strenuous > specific procedures in order to obtain online government services. This > is the design philosophy of the new Portal Brasil. -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 527 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Sep 28 19:41:34 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:41:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds In-Reply-To: <00d801cebca0$ba5e3b10$2f1ab130$@gmail.com> References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> <00b601cebc9b$0481eee0$0d85cca0$@gmail.com> <00d801cebca0$ba5e3b10$2f1ab130$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Gmail saw 287.9 million unique worldwide visitors Microsoft's Hotmail, which finished with 286.2 million unique visitors. Yahoo, the once mighty e-mail power, with 281.7 million This isn't even "dominance" (per the article), let alone "monopoly". On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Google (now) #1 free email service. > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57543177-93/gmail-edges-hotmail-as-worlds-top-e-mail-service/ > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 3:53 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I think a lot of people are rather more anxious now than previously >> with the "deal" that they signed up for with Gmail but the problem is >> to find workable alternatives... Given their resources and >> monopolistic behanviour (predatory pricing?) Gmail seem to have pushed >> most of the possible althernative services out of the market (at least for the moment... > > > nonsense. I Googled "free email", and got 10 alternatives on the first page alone...with Gmail coming in at #8 on the list. > > > Googling for "leading free email service" gives this result: > > http://email.about.com/od/freeemailreviews/tp/free_email.htm > > in which Gmail is listed as #1, this means that people like the service, not that there are no other options. > > Monopoly is defined on Wikipedia as: > > "A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly > > This is not the case with any service from Google that I can think of. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 28 19:58:08 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:58:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] reporting to base... In-Reply-To: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca> References: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20130929015808.6cf47fe4@swan.bollow.ch> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Attached is the PDF version of our document as delivered to her in > print. Thanks! Attached now to http://igcaucus.org/letter-international-civil-society-organizations-president-dilma-rousseff-support-her-statement-68th Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Sep 28 20:07:52 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:07:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds In-Reply-To: References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> <00b601cebc9b$0481eee0$0d85cca0$@gmail.com> <00d801cebca0$ba5e3b10$2f1ab130$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00fe01cebca7$f0e7da90$d2b78fb0$@gmail.com> Hmmm... FWIW, it is, shall we say somewhat questionable to ascribe the use of words to me that don't actually appear in what I wrote... (you might want to check out the difference for example between "monopoly" and "monopolistic behaviour" M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:42 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds Gmail saw 287.9 million unique worldwide visitors Microsoft's Hotmail, which finished with 286.2 million unique visitors. Yahoo, the once mighty e-mail power, with 281.7 million This isn't even "dominance" (per the article), let alone "monopoly". On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Google (now) #1 free email service. > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57543177-93/gmail-edges-hotmail-as-wo > rlds-top-e-mail-service/ > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 3:53 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning > Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I think a lot of people are rather more anxious now than previously >> with the "deal" that they signed up for with Gmail but the problem is >> to find workable alternatives... Given their resources and >> monopolistic behanviour (predatory pricing?) Gmail seem to have >> pushed most of the possible althernative services out of the market (at least for the moment... > > > nonsense. I Googled "free email", and got 10 alternatives on the first page alone...with Gmail coming in at #8 on the list. > > > Googling for "leading free email service" gives this result: > > http://email.about.com/od/freeemailreviews/tp/free_email.htm > > in which Gmail is listed as #1, this means that people like the service, not that there are no other options. > > Monopoly is defined on Wikipedia as: > > "A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly > > This is not the case with any service from Google that I can think of. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 28 21:19:05 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 03:19:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: Vote on Monday! Snowden-Sakharov Message-ID: <20130929031905.4bf10963@swan.bollow.ch> Dear all Please consider contributing to creating some noise on the Internet around this. Data protection principles are currently seriously under attack in EU political processes: Things have not been going well on that front so far. If you have a significant presence on twitter, facebook, or similar media, you can make an important contribution to turning the tide. Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:06:34 +0200 Von: "JOSEFSSON Erik" An: Betreff: [bestbits] Vote on Monday! Snowden-Sakharov Dear all, It takes time for the political machinery in the European Parliament to process Snowden's revelations. If you want to help speed that process up, please consider to tweet, mail and blog about the nomination of Snowden for the Sakharov Prize. *The decisive vote on candidates is on Monday 30 September.** * Article19 article: http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/111/view/ DFRI letter to MEPs: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri/765 Private tweet: https://twitter.com/erikjosefsson/status/383502328407400449 Best regards. //Erik -- Erik Josefsson Advisor on Internet Policies Greens/EFA Group GSM: *+32484082063* BXL: PHS 04C075 TEL: +3222832667 SBG: WIC M03005 TEL: +33388173776 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 28 21:40:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 07:10:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds In-Reply-To: <00fe01cebca7$f0e7da90$d2b78fb0$@gmail.com> References: <44DFF654-1679-4801-88B0-D0BAE979AEC4@gmail.com> <07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net> <5244DCC6.1000007@itforchange.net> <5246034A.90907@itforchange.net> <00b601cebc9b$0481eee0$0d85cca0$@gmail.com> <00d801cebca0$ba5e3b10$2f1ab130$@gmail.com> <00fe01cebca7$f0e7da90$d2b78fb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5703D4E3-FE49-4F99-B206-13A21FD54C8E@hserus.net> Economics 101 for the difference between the two, McTim :) Gurstein has a point, the free email market IS monopolistic in nature, but then again so are other commodity markets where effort is made to differentiate a product to justify its pricing in whatever form (ad supported ... paid for email, all the way to hamburgers, say) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition --srs (iPad) > On 29-Sep-2013, at 5:37, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Hmmm... FWIW, it is, shall we say somewhat questionable to ascribe the use of words to me that don't actually appear in what I wrote... (you might want to check out the difference for example between "monopoly" and "monopolistic behaviour" > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:42 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds > > Gmail saw 287.9 million unique worldwide visitors Microsoft's Hotmail, which finished with 286.2 million unique visitors. > Yahoo, the once mighty e-mail power, with 281.7 million > > This isn't even "dominance" (per the article), let alone "monopoly". > >> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Google (now) #1 free email service. >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57543177-93/gmail-edges-hotmail-as-wo >> rlds-top-e-mail-service/ >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 3:53 PM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Google's Gmail Keyword Scanning >> Might Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds >> >>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> I think a lot of people are rather more anxious now than previously >>> with the "deal" that they signed up for with Gmail but the problem is >>> to find workable alternatives... Given their resources and >>> monopolistic behanviour (predatory pricing?) Gmail seem to have >>> pushed most of the possible althernative services out of the market (at least for the moment... >> >> >> nonsense. I Googled "free email", and got 10 alternatives on the first page alone...with Gmail coming in at #8 on the list. >> >> >> Googling for "leading free email service" gives this result: >> >> http://email.about.com/od/freeemailreviews/tp/free_email.htm >> >> in which Gmail is listed as #1, this means that people like the service, not that there are no other options. >> >> Monopoly is defined on Wikipedia as: >> >> "A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly >> >> This is not the case with any service from Google that I can think of. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Sep 28 22:00:00 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 23:00:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] reporting to base... In-Reply-To: <52476573.9050601@eff.org> References: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca> <52476573.9050601@eff.org> Message-ID: <2C064A3B-7254-4070-A8A8-A79A31E7A183@cafonso.ca> No, we already have that for decades in BR (it is called CPF). The new Portal is an attempt to streamline online federal services. sent from a dumbphone > On 28/09/2013, at 20:25, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > sounds like a unique ID for egovt purposes! :D > >> On 9/28/13 12:27 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> So, Rousseff said, the government ought to recognize this and treat each >> citizen as the same individual who does not need to go through strenuous >> specific procedures in order to obtain online government services. This >> is the design philosophy of the new Portal Brasil. > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom > of speech since 1990 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Sep 29 11:40:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 21:10:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: After Snowden Leaks, Countries Want Digital Privacy Enshrined in Human Rights Treaty References: Message-ID: --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > Led by the German government, a loose coalition of privacy chiefs from countries across the world is pushing to update an influential international human rights treaty that enshrines the right to privacy. German officials first wrote to their counterparts in other European Union countries with the proposal after Snowden’s revelations about the sweeping scope of spy programs operated by the NSA. They were seeking support for an attempt to protect citizens’ right to privacy in the Internet Age—and the effort is now beginning to gather momentum. > > The intention is to draw up an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a 1966 multilateral treaty that is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is endorsed by more than 160 countries, including the United States. Article 17 of the ICCPR already states that citizens should not be “subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence” and contains a vague so-called “general comment” that says the collection of information from computers must be “regulated by law.” But the German government wants to broaden and update Article 17, adding an additional protocol for the “digital sphere” that specifically covers the conduct of spy agencies. It may as well be named the “Snowden Protocol,” > > Data protection chiefs in Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, and Lichtenstein were quick to back the plan, which the German government says was initially proposed in a letter it sent to other EU member states in July. On Tuesday, however, the proposal received a major boost at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Warsaw, Poland. During a closed session at the conference open only to the privacy chiefs, a resolution was put forward for a vote on the proposal to update Article 17. They voted overwhelmingly in favor of the idea, recognizing a need to “create globally applicable standards for data protection and the protection of privacy in accordance with the rule of law.” Notably, only one country did not approve of the resolution: the United States. A representative from the Federal Trade Commission abstained. > > http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/26/article_17_surveillance_update_countries_want_digital_privacy_in_the_iccpr.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Sep 29 11:46:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:46:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] After Snowden Leaks, Countries Want Digital Privacy Enshrined in Human Rights Treaty Message-ID: <00b301cebd2b$186c09a0$49441ce0$@gmail.com> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/26/article_17_surveillance_u pdate_countries_want_digital_privacy_in_the_iccpr.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Sep 29 17:07:10 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:07:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media! In-Reply-To: <0a7d01cebc6a$66aa5fc0$33ff1f40$@gmail.com> References: <52470401.90107@cafonso.ca> <0a7d01cebc6a$66aa5fc0$33ff1f40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Nice one! Carlos, the reporter in case, also know as "ruivo", was previously briefed by the email I've sent him, Ccing you, remember? I think we shall take this strategy (always reaching friendly press representatives in advance) in mind for our major outreach activities. cheers joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Here via GoogleTranslate is a translation of the statement (perhaps one of > our Portuguese speaking colleagues might like to correct this for broader > circulation. > > M > > Dilma wins international support for criticizing U.S. and defend Internet > > Luis Osvaldo Grossmann :: > Digital Convergence :: 27.09.2013 :: > > When claiming espionage and defend the Internet open, neutral and > multi-stakeholder governance in his speech at the UN , Dilma Rousseff > garnered attention and allies . In a letter to be delivered on Friday , > 27/9 , 58 organizations from 14 countries , including the United States , > expressing " strong support " to the words of the president . > > In the letter , which can also be signed online ( > bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga ) , institutions like consummers > International , Electronic Frontier Foundation , Amnesty International , > WWW Foundation , Nupef , Free Software Association and FGV " uplift " that > Dilma has " taken a leadership role in these matters ." > > " We endorse fully the five principles set out in clear agreement with the > principles hallmarks of governance and use of the Internet in Brazil , we > emphasize the importance of adopting the Marco Civil Internet , laud the > courage to disapprove Brazil and charge U.S. explanations on interception > illegal data and information, " the letter says. > > In case, Dilma listed freedom of expression , privacy multilateral > governance , cultural diversity and network neutrality . How did you > describe on his Twitter the 'father ' of the Internet in Brazil , and a > member of CGI , Demi Getschko " Dilma practically read the Decalogue of the > CGI in the opening of the UN " . > > Also according to what he told President Dilma on Tuesday in New York , > the document , which also has individual subscriptions , argues that the > Brazilian model of governance , similar to the Internet Management > Committee in Brazil , " is extended to wider spheres . " > > See the full text of the ' letter of international organizations of civil > society to President Dilma Rousseff to support the speech at the 68th > session of the General Assembly of the United Nations ' : > > " We, the undersigned organizations and individuals around the world , > committed to the development of the Internet and advances in its use for > social and economic justice , we would like to express our strong support > for the speech made this week by his Excellency the 68th session of the > Assembly general of the United Nations . We praise you for taking a > leadership role on these issues and would like to : > > 1. Fully endorse the five principles set out at the time , in clear > agreement with the principles of the Brazilian Steering Committee for the > governance and use of the Internet ; > > 2 . To underscore the importance of timely adoption of the Marco Civil > Internet in the way that supports these principles and endorse the > innovative and democratic process by which it was designed . " > > 3 . Praise the courage of Brazil expressing disapproval and U.S. demand > explanations on the procedures of unlawful interception of information and > data , framing them as a serious violation of human rights and civil > liberties ; > > 4 . Strengthen our support for the extension to wider spheres of > governance of the Internet experience of Brazilian multistakeholder model > of governance, led by CGI.br. > > We express our deep appreciation for their serious commitment to social > justice and development , including an open Internet , stable and reliable > is a cornerstone . " > > Read the document : http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:30 AM > To: Carolina; ; Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus - IGC > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media! > > Hi dear Carol, the right link is this: > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35003&sid=4#.UkcDoLOm1q8 > > Although there was a literal press army at the event, I did not know they > would take this. Fantastic! > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 09/28/2013 01:24 PM, Carolina wrote: > > http://www.convergenciadigital.uol.br/ > > Dilma ganha apoio internacional por criticar EUA e defender Internet > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 28 12:33:35 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:33:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. In-Reply-To: References: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> <141602c8f38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52469813.c3e00e0a.60d4.57cfSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: At 14:07 28/09/2013, McTim wrote: > >> And the IETF does not "thnk" monolithicaly. There will be a spectrum > >> of viewpoints inside the IETF as diverse as its participants. It is > >> not an "organisation" per se, rather a group of volunteers (altho > >> recently it has more of a secretariat than in previous decades. > > > > > > A "secretariat"? This is an interesting point of view. > > > > Do you mean by that they tend to endorse external propositions? or that the > > technology is developped enough to act as rails that IETF is to follow? or > > that in becoming an ISOC affilitate, and now adhering to > OpenStand they lost > > independency (and possibly IAB wisdom and/or guidance)? Or something else? > >Something else: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_(administrative_office) Sorry, this does not make sense to me: IETF secretariat matters have been removed from them and are in charge of the IAOC jointly supported by ISOC? Anyway the main point is that your remark seemed to imply something in relation with Michael's information on Brian's IETF Draft? Cheers. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 29 19:40:18 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:40:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] What the IETF is thinking about Prism these days.. In-Reply-To: <5248b721.84320f0a.38b4.39d9SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <06ff01cebb98$92389d50$b6a9d7f0$@gmail.com> <141602c8f38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52469813.c3e00e0a.60d4.57cfSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <5248b721.84320f0a.38b4.39d9SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 12:33 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 14:07 28/09/2013, McTim wrote: >> >> >> And the IETF does not "thnk" monolithicaly. There will be a spectrum >> >> of viewpoints inside the IETF as diverse as its participants. It is >> >> not an "organisation" per se, rather a group of volunteers (altho >> >> recently it has more of a secretariat than in previous decades. >> > >> > >> > A "secretariat"? This is an interesting point of view. >> > >> > Do you mean by that they tend to endorse external propositions? or that >> > the >> > technology is developped enough to act as rails that IETF is to follow? >> > or >> > that in becoming an ISOC affilitate, and now adhering to OpenStand they >> > lost >> > independency (and possibly IAB wisdom and/or guidance)? Or something >> > else? >> >> Something else: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_(administrative_office) > > > Sorry, this does not make sense to me: IETF secretariat matters have been > removed from them and are in charge of the IAOC jointly supported by ISOC? I thought ISOC had from the very early days been the admin home of the IETF. > Anyway the main point is that your remark seemed to imply something in > relation with Michael's information on Brian's IETF Draft? nope, implied nothing of the sort. -- 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 meier-hahn at hiig.de Mon Sep 30 04:53:49 2013 From: meier-hahn at hiig.de (Uta Meier-Hahn) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:53:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media! In-Reply-To: References: <52470401.90107@cafonso.ca> <0a7d01cebc6a$66aa5fc0$33ff1f40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: FYI: http://policyreview.info/articles/news/brazil-lead-governance-internet/198 Best, Uta Meier-Hahn Brazil to lead the governance of the internet 27 Sep 2013 by Monika Ermert on Internet Governance Brazil President Dilma Rousseff's questioning of US mass surveillance at the 68th United Nations general assembly on September 24 brought her a lot of attention. Will her speech result in concrete changes internationally, as well as in Brazil? Civil society groups hope they can still influence the draft bill “Marco Civil” to make it the progressive internet legislation envisaged in Brazil since 2009. Internationally, the next steps of Latin American countries with regard to internet governance and to their national infrastructure are expected to be decisive. At the last UN general assembly, Brazilian President called the US mass surveillance programmes “a breach of international law” and warned the “argument that the illegal interception of information and data aims at protecting nations against terrorism cannot be sustained." According to reports by the Brazilian paper Globo based on information leaked by former NSA-subcontractor Edward Snowden, Brazil was/is a high interest surveillance target. Support for Rousseff's strong statements - which contrast with the silent reaction of European Union governments, came in from the European parliament, where Hannes Swoboda, leader of the Socialist & Democrats group tweeted that the parliament should side with the Brazilian President. Brazil’s president had said: “The time is ripe to create the conditions to prevent cyberspace from being used as a weapon of war, through espionage, sabotage, and attacks against systems and infrastructure of other countries." Rousseff announced next steps, including a hint at efforts to secure the networks in Brazil. Meanwhile, during a conference on internet governance last week, the Council of Europe criticised European governments who took shots at the media reporting on the fall-out of the mass surveillance revelations. Infrastructure independence? Latin American governments now are pondering over their potential defense. Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño told Reuters during the UN session: "We have decided to begin to work on new internet communication systems of our countries, of our societies, to avoid continuing being the object and prey of illegal spying that U.S. spying entities have developed against us." According to Reuters, the defense council of the regional Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) – made up of the region's defense ministers – is in charge of examining how to implement the idea. One project with regard to an alternative international infrastructure for Latin American countries has been going on for some years already: the so-called BRICS cable (Brazil, India, China, South Africa). The large optic fibre sea cable project is expected to link-up African, Asian and Latin American countries. Existing fibre optic cables including the large sea cables were heavily tapped, according to Guardian reports: 200 fibre taps were attributed to the British Government Communications Headquarter (GCHQ) alone. Another likely fall-out of the Snowden revelations are re-newed discussions about the special role the US has with regard to core components of the internet infrastructure. Brazil had belonged to the group of countries challenging the US oversight over the Domain Name System since the preparations for the first World Summit of the Information Society. Multi-Stakeholder vs. Multi-lateral – and the *Marco Civil* Rousseff in her speech already requested that the United Nations "play a leading role in the effort to regulate the conduct of States with regard to these technologies." Brazil would present proposals for the establishment of a civilian multi-lateral framework for the governance and use of the internet. These muli-lateral framework mechanisms should ensure the principles of cultural diversity, net neutrality, freedom of expression and privacy, multi-lateral and democratic governance and universality. Brazil's civil society certainly recognises these principle, which stem from work on Brazil's own internet legislation, the Marco Civil, which has been under way since 2009. Snowden's revelations were needed to bring about another push for the much debated legislation. Marco Civil was initially developed by the Fundação Getúlio Vargas and the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and promoted as a forward looking legislation developed in a multi-stakeholder way. Yet, Rousseff's choice of the word multi-lateral instead of "multi-stakehoder,“ which seems to focus on inter-governmental governance only, has triggered some discussion between civil society groups – and certainly attracted some old mantra-like warnings about the UN (or the International Telecommunication Union) "taking over“. The Marco Civil model got a lot of scratches, especially when a provision for intermediary liability was introduced unilaterally by the government at a later stage. Rousseff now calls the Marco Civil an “emergency measure” and intends to include a provision that may oblige intermediaries to keep data of local users local, instead of transferring them out of the country. The discussion over the legislation is on again and international civil society groups came together to support their Brazilian colleagues in getting the right balance for the final text – a letter of supportwent out to the president on September 26. Avri Doria, a US-Swedish academic and expert in internet governance had some reservations about not making a much stronger point in it on the need to include all stakeholders down the road. A weakening of the multi-stakeholder model would be a great setback, she warns. Will Snowden's revelations help the strengthening of multi-stakeholderism? Beyond Brazil's leadership on internet governance, this question still remains very much open. -- [image: HIIG-Logo] Uta Meier-Hahn | Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin | Doktorandenprogramm Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft gGmbH Bebelplatz 1 · 10099 Berlin T +49 30 20 93-3490 · F +49 30 20 93-3435 · www.hiig.de · [image: Facebook-Button] [image: Twitter-Button] [image: Google+1-Button] Gesellschaftssitz Berlin | Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg | HRB 140911B Steuer ID 27/601/54619 | Geschäftsführung: Dr. Jeanette Hofmann · Prof. Dr. Dr. Ingolf Pernice · Prof. Dr. Dr. Thomas Schildhauer · Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulz · Dr. Karina Preiß -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sep 30 14:33:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:33:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: "Snowden isn't just about Surveillance. It is much, Much, MUCH worse... Message-ID: <03f701cebe0b$a887e8c0$f997ba40$@gmail.com> "Snowden isn't just about Surveillance. It is much, Much, MUCH worse..." http://wp.me/pJQl5-cS 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