From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Feb  1 04:48:12 2014
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 09:48:12 +0000
Subject: [governance] Good news on Istanbul IGF
In-Reply-To: <FAC43F75-E01E-4EC8-9375-F635D7D4D70A@gmail.com>
References: <FAC43F75-E01E-4EC8-9375-F635D7D4D70A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <xN3lxQgcLM7SFA9k@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <FAC43F75-E01E-4EC8-9375-F635D7D4D70A at gmail.com>, at 16:59:19 
on Fri, 31 Jan 2014, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> writes
>The new Turkish rep on the MAG just wrote to say they’ve decided to 
>stick with the announced dates after all, September 2-5.  Glad they 
>listened to the concerns expressed.  It will still be very difficult to 
>pull this together, we have two months less than we did for Bali.

Maybe it's a blessing in disguise, because at least everyone will 
realise they have to finish the preparations before August, and thus 
avoid a hiatus of inaction over the summer season.
-- 
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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sun Feb  2 07:59:35 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 13:59:35 +0100
Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil
 meeting preparation
In-Reply-To: <CAPM93kWQtZuuntP5RB-MfSJSjodOc24Vsc_qi_0SZi_kQUx1wg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcuTUxdgDY3XQfkGrPtJdXWwW8ZWchN4mL9-QbjnrfTZA@mail.gmail.com> <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <CA+EjHYpONr4szYJqOjmYyxS49HA0JK9bXSxgciEgARhigUZhwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD_dc6jo17RnRRGs6A5HJiPy+USitFUwy4eydnikWiYsRJ-vxA@mail.gmail.com> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <A5ED1653-6A98-4855-ADC9-82178C819162@theglobaljournal.net> <AC1BE8C0-A23F-482A-A3CE-B400ADDB8518@corp.arin.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272197EC9D5@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com> <D03710F1-0606-44D1-8134-12BB18733191@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <E9B15C30-5B17-499B-9020-9983E3619C84@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> <CAPM93kWQtZuuntP5RB-MfSJSjodOc24Vsc_
 qi_0SZi_kQUx1wg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <675C0CFA-6CDE-49C1-BB1B-C1C26DC2247E@theglobaljournal.net>

Thanks for your comment and interesting point.

I will look into it
__________________________

Jean-Christophe 



Le 30 janv. 2014 à 02:53, Hindenburgo Pires a écrit :

> Dear Jean-christophe Nothias,
> 
> I have read your paper published on Huffington Post, I would like to congratulate for your careful report, mainly about the established control of the Internet's root servers on the American continent.
> In 2002 an alternative counter-hegemonic had been developed with the creation of the Open Root Server Network (ORSN). There are some reflections on these issues in my papers:
> a) 2008 - Global Internet Governance: The representation of toponyms of countries in the cyberspace: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-270/sn-270-151.htm
> b) 2012 - National states, sovereignty and regulation of the Internet: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-418/sn-418-63.htm
> 
> The ORSN was shutdown in 2008, as it was explained through the document: https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2008-October/003339.html
> 
> In 2013 with revelations of Edward Snowden on the NSA surveillance by intelligence agencies in the United States, the system of the OSNR was again reactivated with the idea of reducing the asymmetry caused by the Internet control maintained by a single country.
> 
> I believe ORSN could be an alternative against this control and it doesn't represent a fragmentation of internet.
> 
> This was the reason for reactivation of the ORSN: http://www.orsn.org/en/
> 
> Welcome to the project page of the Open Root Server Network.
> 
> The ORSN was founded in January 2002 and operated to the middle of 2008. At that time, the former ICANN organists DNS root server were mainly represented on the American continent. Only a few systems were installed in the rest of the world. Our aim is it to reduce this imbalance and make the European Community less dependent on the American system. Our DNS network was constantly expanding over the past years between 2002 and 2008. We operated up to 13 root servers at peak times in many European countries, such as France, Portugal, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and even one system in the United States that was operated by the founder of the ISC and BIND developer Paul Vixie.
> 
> The main reason why ORSN is necessary is to counteract the geographically imbalance of important DNS servers. Another point is the fact that only a single nation (United States) possesses the actual power of managing the all DNS servers in the world. The ICANN root servers are still under the power of the US Commerce Department. Such important infrastructure should actually be under the leadership of a global organisation. So far there is no changed in sight.
> 
> As in 2008 the ICANN and its operators set up AnyCast centers worldwide and copied all our 13 root servers and flooding the market by using the BGP protocol in the Internet, we decided to close down our service as we had no technology to expand our DNS rooter as fast as the ICANN. Till today all Internet users are depended on what is registered and stays registered in the servers. That's why ORSN is needed to establish an independent and transparent server for responsible and equal use for all Internet.
> 
> And that is exactly the reason why the ORSN was again activated in June 2013. After the revelations of Edward Snowden and reports in the media about the extent of total surveillance by intelligence agencies in the United States (NSA with Prism) and the Britsh EU partner (GCHQ with Tempora) now we only learn about the degree of observation and control by this government run agencies. We don't know how far the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) is involved in previous "programs". At this point one could ask why revived the ORSN on the basis of the monitoring measures? What do we both have in common? What can the ORSN do against this?
> 
> The simple answer to these questions is: Nothing at all!
> 
> ORSN will have no technical possibility to disable surveillance or fight against them. But we as Internet users (community) can distance us from this system (which record our daily communications and processes) and build or own private DNS-server network which will be controlled by the community in Europe and other parts of the world.
> ORSN will have the same standard of DNS information as in 2002-2008. ORSN is 100%-compatible with the ICANN root server network systems. You will not find any TLD in our database.
> 
> There will be however a difference to ICANN. The control is located in the community and therefore in the people that makes the Internet so interesting. The people in each country who use ORSN giving their consent that their data is for public use compare to data being retrieved with out consent by the ICANN.
> We hope the ORSN receives again worldwide popularity and will be able to put the trust back into the Internet and its users.
> 
> This platform will document the entire work of the ORSN team. You can see in real time the operating States of our infrastructure. We will publish our database. ORSN focuses on transparency and on data security. Appropriate protection mechanisms will ensure that in the future no nation in the world will be deleted from the DNS.
> 
> 
> 2014-01-29 JCN Global <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
> Do not be so impatient to jump at new ideas with guns and pistols! Still I am happy to elaborate a bit on a small part of it, as many other things have to be taken in consideration here.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. You might also have trouble to make a difference between 'norms' and 'policies'. Beyond norms and standards, there are other words that do embed values and principles. Norms and standards are for many of them technically oriented if not technically or voluntary biased. We all know that the architecture of the ONE Internet we know today was set on purpose with 'holes' that were part of a grand design - no conspiracy thinking please. Just a technical setting that reflected a political will at the time. Any technician would have considered this 'hole' has an imperfection, but this same imperfection was there on purpose - Tech is not that neutral, it often comes with a 'policy'.
> 
> Even though that is not my best bet, I was wondering if the technical community of the Internet - on a broad scope - would find it that difficult to connect 2 Internets to each other. Or 3 Internet to each other. In other words, I was wondering about a Multinet, if the designing (or change of grand design) of a ONE Internet has reached its limits for giving way to a fair 'Law of the Internet'. I am sure than all the smart e-minds around would not find it that difficult, neither very expansive. Again, this is not my best bet to have 2, 3, 4… Internet. Just wondering. Eli Noam and others find it inevitable. I think you do remember the video conversation you guys had all together few months ago. That being said, I do not buy straight up the idea that a MULTINET would create so much frictions and increase costs for doing business, a concern Chehadé is now raising to push the US companies into some form of compromise about IG. Cheahdé, as a good player would do, has asked the Boston Consulting Group to bring some arguments against a MULTINET. This has to be debate in the open, and in details.
> 
> According to you John, is 'Privacy' a norm or a standard? I don't see it that way. If it was so, why does Vint Cerf explains with his usual sense of 'Star Wars' humor, that privacy does not exist anymore? "Why do you guys bother about it?" Indeed he belongs to the Asymmetrics that do not have any specific consideration for 'privacy'. His business (Google's) is to exploit our privacy for the need of advertisers. Google is being copied by many, so far never been equalized or overpassed. Google did so well, that they made a fortune out of violating our privacy, destroying by the same token many independent media that suddenly were not able to compete in the face of advertisers. Good for Google though. Google brought many other tools and norms to the world, but it was not without huge returns for itself. You know that around the world there are different perceptions of privacy and the way law can consider that 'our' data, including metadata belong to each one of us.
> 
> Regarding Internet Human Rights, please bring to the table any serious professor of law, knowing a bit of what are human rights, and see what he thinks of digital human rights. Sorry we have some good ones here in GENEVA. Have we got per say, "Print Human RIghts", or 'Phone Human Rights", or "Traveling Human Rights". Human rights cover all aspects of rights without consideration of the 'vehicle'. With the UN Human Rights charter, you already have all what you need to get anyone condemn for infringement of human rights over the Internet whether you take Freedom of expression, or any other sort of violation. You could argue that the UN could put up a case against all the big corporation that are violating 'privacy' of billion. The Human Right Council should be a good venue for this. The expression of Internet Human Rights comes from where? From my observation it came out of the US State Department. Alec Ross whom I interviewed before he quitted his job as Senior Digital Advisor to Secretary Clinton had a smile hearing my question about these 'rights' . He  confessed on the record me that these Internet or Digital Human rights did not exist but that the expression was getting 'support' as you said earlier. Again, this support is very questionable, as we don't know who are the supporters, if they represent more than themselves, and, at the end of the day, if they have any legitimacy. Privacy is not specific to so-called Internet Human Rights. Privacy is an hold asset to human rights.
> 
> Norms and standards are 'applicable', but do you understand "applicable" in the technical sense meaning 'doable'? Or 'applicable' in the sense of law, meaning possibly enforced with the intervention of justice and police force. These are complete different ideas. 
> 
> Law, national and international are part of the IG debate, and so far the Asymmetrics have managed to escape them. Law would be the ultimate villain. Law and governments. This has to come to an end, when you consider spamming, surveillance, cyberwar...
> 
> I see the technical community as people enjoying the 'no-limit' game, or no-boundaries game. A 'Law of the Internet' would call for respect of values, common values, and not just norms and standards. 
> 
> This is one of the few points where the gap or divide between the current holders of an asymmetric IG are not ready to go. History will prove them that they are wrong by confusing norms/standards and values/law. All of them have to come together. And that requires much more TRUST, LEGITIMACY. 
> 
> Think about it John, this is only a DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGE. Asymmetrics have to accept a global demand to introduce DEMOCRACY back in the game, not just a phony 'equal footing' norm or standard, that clearly means nothing to any honest Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> Le 29 janv. 2014 à 16:56, John Curran a écrit :
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it.
>> 
>> JC -
>> 
>> Regarding the scope of your hypothetical "supreme international body" (which is apparently your 
>> proposed solution to the present situation) - are you advocating that there be treaty body to establish 
>> "Law of the Internet" as opposed to recognition of the applicability of existing international norms 
>> to actions that now take place over the Internet?
>> 
>> i.e.  "Internet" Human Rights distinct from Human Rights, "Internet" Personal Privacy distinct 
>>         from Personal Data Privacy rights, "Internet" Diplomatic law rather than Vienna Diplomatic
>>         relations, etc.?
>> 
>> The Internet is a communications medium, and while it may have unique aspects, I am trying to 
>> discern whether that is the limit of the scope of your hypothetical supreme international body 
>> or whether it is something greater.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>> 
>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140202/d7d5e15e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sun Feb  2 23:15:08 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:15:08 +1200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Consultation [MAG] CALL FOR COMMENTS AND
 CONTRIBUTIONS
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCf1dAU+vy_kH5N8uqe3-d-LfCN9e54rAYH5v6JB1RKTA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

My contributions in my personal capacity are as follows:

My personal views are that the IGC is a great place to allow for the frank
discussion of current challenges that will help better inform the global
community to allow for progressive dialogue and response where there is an
increased move to shared responsibility.

Here are some things I would like to see addressed in the IGF 2014.

On the selection of civil society representatives at the IGF, I believe
that there should be an open process within the global civil society
community where they make their selection of those who will speak on their
behalf at the IGF. There should be clear communication from civil society
MAG members so there is no perception of hijacking as there were several
things that the community wanted to raise.



   1. Developing High Level Principles to address situations where there is
   a Conflict between National Security and Global Public Interest . Lessons
   for diverse stakeholders and developing shared responsibility.
   2. Ethics of Surveillance by Corporates and Governments
   3. Threats and challenges to global public interest. Sharing End User
   Perspectives. Using specific and select scenarios within current technical
   and policy making forums to point to these situations and to develop
   dialogue and discussions on how we can address this as a community.
   4. Traditional Cultural Expressions and Intellectual Property challenges
   in the gTLD world. Identifying the conflicts and engaging in dialogue to
   discuss potential solutions.
   5. Cyber Crime: Law Enforcement and Whois
   6. What developing countries need to look out for as they prepare for
   IPv6 Transition
   7. Debate on the importance of a single unified root versus multiple
   roots. The advantages, strengths and challenges.
   8. Challenges affecting ISPs and Network Operators in Developing
   Countries and impact on Internet Proliferation, DNSSEC penetration rate,
   root server spread etc;
   9. MS Selection Processes: Towards Accountability and Transparency
   Version 2
   10. IDNs and multilingualism
   11. Growing Local Content - Lessons from the top 5 ranked IDI countries

I would also like to see global civil society work together to develop a
framework in bottom up transparent mechanism for civil society selection
into various key Internet Governance Foras.

Kind Regards,
Sala


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Members and Subscribers of the IGC,
>
> Following Adam Peake and Fatima Cambronero's email inviting the IGC to
> prepare and submit its comments. You are invited to share your thoughts
> here. I note that there were some remarks last year on the mailing list
> that intellectual property was not given much notice by the organizers. If
> you have any comments to make on the following:
>
> 1) nature of the IGC last year;
> 2)its remote participation;
> 3)social media in the use of hash tags;
> 4)Content;
> 5)Form of organisation;
> 6)Censorship
> 7)Choice of Theme;
> 8)Alignment to Theme;
> 9)Any other comments or categories
>
>
>  Let us have your thoughts. Views will be synthesized, summarized before
> they are sent on.
>
> Our deadline is 10th February, 2014. So we will take a week to solicit
> comments before we synthesize and put it forward for final comments and
> consensus call.
>
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
> I
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/2014-January/000636.html
>>
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > I have posted on the IGF website the following request for public input:
>> >
>> > Request for public input: All stakeholders are encouraged to submit
>> suggestions or ideas for issues to be discussed at the 2014 IGF to the
>> following email address:
>> > IGF2014si at intgovforum.org.
>> >  We kindly request that proposals are kept short and succinct. These
>> proposals will be put into a synthesis paper that will act as an input into
>> the discussions. The deadline for submission is 10 February 2014.
>> >
>> > I would be grateful if you could all circulate it amongst your
>> respective stakeholders.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Chengetai
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140203/90f5b7d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Feb  3 03:03:24 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 20:03:24 +1200
Subject: [governance] Middle East DNS Forum [Live Now]
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiA7cMuo=etWgtzxt_he32c+Qbg7OY9x466VXd6xjxcr0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Speaker is currently speaking about Internet Proliferation in Arab and the
advantages of having Arabic script and how it has revolutionised
access.....Apologies for the cross posting.

For those interested in streaming into the Middle East DNS Forum in Dubai
Feb 3-4, 2014. Those who will not be able to attend the forum in person can
do
so using remote participation tools. Remote participation links can be
found at the following URLs:

Arabic Streaming è
http://stream.icann.org:8000/dns-ar.m3u<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstream.icann.org%3A8000%2Fdns-ar.m3u&h=IAQG8p3sm&enc=AZO88G-N43Se0FwFMkUItYfTkEc3uiEOENz1SNnGsY1QS27QsIq_QBTpIRwlM5HsnqUh8EzEP9s1XQdAqFyylc3ZTsXoguxUssLQ5cM92UeaFCZ8sAbFDBLpgzErJaWULl5RJxcXW9xO-VENDdvUGeEu&s=1>

English Streaming è http://stream.icann.org:8000/dns-en.m3u

Both links will be active during the proceedings of the forum only starting
on Feb 3 at 9.00 AM Dubai Time (5.00 AM UTC/GMT).

Kind Regards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140203/22944b3b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  3 03:54:38 2014
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 00:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Middle East DNS Forum [Live Now]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiA7cMuo=etWgtzxt_he32c+Qbg7OY9x466VXd6xjxcr0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA7cMuo=etWgtzxt_he32c+Qbg7OY9x466VXd6xjxcr0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1391417678.29787.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Thank you Sala for sharing the information.


>________________________________
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
>To: apralo <apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
>Sent: Monday, 3 February 2014, 13:03
>Subject: [governance] Middle East DNS Forum [Live Now]
> 
>
>
>Dear All,
>
>
>Speaker is currently speaking about Internet Proliferation in Arab and the advantages of having Arabic script and how it has revolutionised access.....Apologies for the cross posting.
>For those interested in streaming into the Middle East DNS Forum in Dubai
>Feb 3-4, 2014. Those who will not be able to attend the forum in person can do
>so using remote participation tools. Remote participation links can be
>found at the following URLs:
>
>Arabic Streaming è http://stream.icann.org:8000/dns-ar.m3u
>
>English Streaming è http://stream.icann.org:8000/dns-en.m3u
>
>Both links will be active during the proceedings of the forum only starting
>on Feb 3 at 9.00 AM Dubai Time (5.00 AM UTC/GMT).
>
>
>
>Kind Regards
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140203/0cd4a128/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Feb  3 04:04:23 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 21:04:23 +1200
Subject: [governance] Middle East DNS Forum [Live Now]
In-Reply-To: <1391417678.29787.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA7cMuo=etWgtzxt_he32c+Qbg7OY9x466VXd6xjxcr0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1391417678.29787.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBUsqtAPNZDRSNStvpcSM0RA+cnBNDbv-g8+0UQZ-t+jw@mail.gmail.com>

You are welcome Imran.  They are on lunch break for an hour and will resume
at 2pm their time.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thank you Sala for sharing the information.
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> *To:* apralo <apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; At-Large
> Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, 3 February 2014, 13:03
> *Subject:* [governance] Middle East DNS Forum [Live Now]
>
> Dear All,
>
> Speaker is currently speaking about Internet Proliferation in Arab and the
> advantages of having Arabic script and how it has revolutionised
> access.....Apologies for the cross posting.
>
> For those interested in streaming into the Middle East DNS Forum in Dubai
> Feb 3-4, 2014. Those who will not be able to attend the forum in person
> can do
> so using remote participation tools. Remote participation links can be
> found at the following URLs:
>
> Arabic Streaming è http://stream.icann.org:8000/dns-ar.m3u<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstream.icann.org%3A8000%2Fdns-ar.m3u&h=IAQG8p3sm&enc=AZO88G-N43Se0FwFMkUItYfTkEc3uiEOENz1SNnGsY1QS27QsIq_QBTpIRwlM5HsnqUh8EzEP9s1XQdAqFyylc3ZTsXoguxUssLQ5cM92UeaFCZ8sAbFDBLpgzErJaWULl5RJxcXW9xO-VENDdvUGeEu&s=1>
>
> English Streaming è http://stream.icann.org:8000/dns-en.m3u
>
> Both links will be active during the proceedings of the forum only starting
> on Feb 3 at 9.00 AM Dubai Time (5.00 AM UTC/GMT).
>
> Kind Regards
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140203/0af90d2b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Mon Feb  3 08:11:08 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:11:08 +0000
Subject: [governance] The Day We Fight Back - February 11th [Submit a
 cartoon and win $$]
Message-ID: <CADFgh12hDnfe24-=MA-kVoNjtUS_CM19MxcFVumGqk5hZ0tcRw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi there


   1. You have been following on the Snowden and post Snowden issues?
   2. You have been working on Internet and web-related issues
   3. You have an interest in privacy, net neutrality?

Join the Day We Fight Back events across the world on February 11th.


And if you can pull up a nice cartoon, you may win 1000, 500 or 250$

Click on
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/02/03/submit-cartoons-on-nsa-surveillance-and-win-1000/

Check on #webwewant and see what others are sending.


Good luck!!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140203/07407196/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 03:17:23 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:17:23 +1200
Subject: [governance] Poll Closes This Evening [PLEASE VOTE NOW}
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCZ4gtw+oe-53Kiw+pCo3DtdPtbuVW6x2k-wTDT3eUS0w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

As you know, the elections is about to draw to a close and this is a FINAL
reminder for those of you with ballots to take the time to vote.

Please note that only those who vote in this elections can have a say in
any charter amendments etc.

For any further clarifications with respect to the Poll, kindly contact
Jeremy Malcolm and Chaitanya who are the technical team handling the Poll
in the elections.

If you have already voted, thank you for voting.

Kind Regards,
Sala
(Outgoing co-coordinator)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/d6316e95/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Feb  4 04:04:18 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 04:04:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: 2014 High-Level Conferences on ICT and
 the Internet: What Do They Mean? w/ @Veni Markowski @BerkmanCenter
 #governance
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0JdfUUcB1_Xm46yhfy9VBiL7DUZOej7cfWhxs0cUViOA@mail.gmail.com>

By all accounts 2014 is going to busy if not something of a watershed year
for Internet Governance. Following the WCIT in Dubai just over a year ago,
and then the surveillance revelations, everybody - regulators, business,
tech community, and civil society proponents - is gearing up for a series
of BIG sitdowns..In addition to regularly scheduled events such as the
United Nations Plenipot, ICANN, IGF, etc, we have the Brazil summit. Veni
will no doubt talk about these, what our concerns might be, and how best to
be heard.



   joly posted: "Today Tuesday February 4 2014 Veni Markovski, ICANN VP for
Russia, CIS, and Eastern Europe, President of ISOC's Bulgarian Chapter,
will present 2014 High-Level Conferences on ICT and the Internet: What Do
They Mean for the Internet As We Know It?, a talk "
        New post on *ISOC-NY NOTICE BOARD*

 [image: Veni Markovski]Today Tuesday February 4 2014 Veni
Markovski<http://veni.com>,
ICANN VP for Russia, CIS, and Eastern Europe, President of ISOC's Bulgarian
Chapter, will present 2014 High-Level Conferences on ICT and the Internet:
What Do They Mean for the Internet As We Know
It?<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/02/markovski>,
a talk in the Berkman Institute's lunchtime series at Harvard Law School.
The talk will be webcast live by the Berkman Center.

*What*: 2014 High-Level Conferences on ICT and the Internet: What Do They
Mean for the Internet As We Know
It?<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/02/markovski>
*Where*: Berkman Institute, Boston
*When*: Tuesday February 4 2014 12.30pm-2.00pm EST | 1730-1900 UTC
*Webcast*: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/02/markovski
*Twitter*: @Veni <https://twitter.com/search?q=%40Veni&src=typd&f=realtime>|
@BerkmanCenter <https://twitter.com/search?q=%40berkmancenter>

 Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6282#respond>    See all
comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6282#comments>


*Permalink*:
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6282



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/cbc88dd9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 04:19:42 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:19:42 +1200
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator [Goodbye
 and Thanks]
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues,

Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,

It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I would
be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I
knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.
:) I had no clue of what was in store.

Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm made
it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list from
the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who had
been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve. I
would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
collaboration and patience.

At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was
to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their
counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them
for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to
Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind
the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar
has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier
because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his
time.

There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if
people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
the WSIS.

The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both internally
and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to
negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there
were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such
as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.

For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join.
The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated
1:5

When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates,
there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were
usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the
pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus
multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still
exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is
my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different
perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest
concerned

 I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly
those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with
confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are
diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I
see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The
list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC
will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities
and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also
have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we
position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.

To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to
resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was
done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC.

One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
"measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
on some extent on our diplomacy.

Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your
insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
and welcoming them.

Live and let live!

Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).

With every best wish for 2014,

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/340488f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb  4 04:25:09 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 14:55:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E0CCDD48-8DE0-4296-8677-AA9C25D5F807@hserus.net>

>From my side, I thank Sala for her contribution and patience so far, and wish her all the best in participating in the caucus as a regular member now. Should do wonders for her blood pressure at any rate :)

--srs (iPad)

> On 04-Feb-2014, at 14:49, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
> 
> It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I would be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood. :) I had no clue of what was in store. 
> 
> Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve. I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their collaboration and patience. 
> 
> At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his time.
> 
> There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc. This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of the WSIS.
> 
> The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both internally and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
> 
> For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join. The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated 1:5
> 
> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates, there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest concerned
> 
>  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
> 
> To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC. 
> 
> One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent on some extent on our diplomacy.
> 
> Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators and welcoming them. 
> 
> Live and let live!
> 
> Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
> 
> With every best wish for 2014,
> 
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/229ddb69/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Feb  4 06:38:15 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:38:15 +0900
Subject: [governance] report of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee
 (EMC)  finak
Message-ID: <9D16E7F3-35DF-4A27-9029-403843045D44@glocom.ac.jp>

Final version of the report (minutes) of the EMC's first meeting, January 27th, 2014, at: 

<http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/EMC-Jan-27_Executive-report.pdf>

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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Feb  4 06:50:25 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 12:50:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Paper: International WOrkshop on Cloud
 Security (IWOCS2014)
Message-ID: <01d401cf219f$4b074cc0$e115e640$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]

 

****************************************************************************
*********************************

International WOrkshop on Cloud Security (IWOCS)

 

Hosted by the Third ASE International Conference on Cyber Security -
Stanford, CA, USA, May 27 - May 31, 2014

http://www.scienceengineering.org/ase/conference/2014/cybersecurity/sanjose/
website/cloudsecurity-workshop/ 

****************************************************************************
*********************************

 

============

Description

============

 

Cloud technology offers a powerful and fast growing approach to the
provision of infrastructure, platform and software services without the high
costs of owning, operating and maintaining the computational infrastructures
required for this purpose. However, despite its appeal from the economic,
operational and even energy consumption perspectives, cloud technology still
raises concerns regarding the security, privacy, governance and compliance
of the data and software services offered through it. These concerns arise
from the difficulty to verify security properties of the different types of
applications and services available through cloud technology and the
uncertainty of the owners and users of such services about the security of
their services, and of the applications based on them, once they are
deployed and offered through a cloud. This difficulty stems from both the
fact that the provision and security of a cloud service is sensitive to
potential interference between the features and behaviour of all the
inter-dependent services in all layers of the cloud stack, as well as
dynamic changes in them; and the fact that current cloud models and
infrastructure do not provide adequate support for controlling the behaviour
of cloud software and for managing the decoupling of evolution cycles of the
different software components, both applications and services, which happens
in these scenarios. In this setting, system evolution, an inherent process
in most computing systems, has an important impact on the security,
resilience and quality of the cloud. In this line certification and other
assurance approaches become crucial for establishing the necessary trust
relationships. Likewise, novel testing mechanisms, engineering approaches,
formal modelling paradigms, monitoring models, runtime support
infrastructures, secure dynamic application building and service
orchestration approaches, etc. are needed in order to fill other gaps and to
restore the missing trust links in these new scenarios. The workshop will
provide a forum for presenting research results, practical experiences, and
innovative ideas in security infrastructures and applications for cloud
computing. The workshop will focus on Cloud Computing security, how users of
Cloud systems can be educated to maintain the security posture of their
systems, and how to improve the state of the art of Cloud Computing. The
workshop will also look at the need to facilitate research and development
of the next generation of Cloud Computing security standards and tools to
assist in the creation of better, more secure systems.

 

================

Important Dates

================

 

•             Paper Submissions 15-03-2014

•             Notification for Authors 01-04-2014

•             Camera Ready Deadline 07-05-2014

•             Workshop Dates 27-05-2014

 

===============

List of Topics

===============

 

•             Secure Virtualization Structures

•             Privacy Enforcement for cloud applications, platforms and
operations

•             Monitoring systems for cloud infrastructure/platform
applications

•             Cloud security architecture and protocol

•             Data protection and secured information sharing in the cloud

•             Evolution of multi-tenant monitoring as a function of the
number of tenants.

•             Intra- and inter-cloud security issues and considerations

•             Privacy policy framework for clouds

•             Access control mechanisms and trust models for cloud services

•             Energy/cost/efficiency of security in clouds

•             Secure Mobile Cloud Networking

•             Content and Service Distribution

•             Security Certification for cloud

•             Security Engineering for cloud

 

=============

Organization

=============

 

Workshop chairs

 

•             ANTONIO MUÑOZ, University of Málaga, Spain

•             ERNESTO DAMIANI, University of Milan, Italy

 

Program Committee

 

•             ALCARAZ-CALERO, JOSE M., Hewlett-Packard, UK

•             ANTON DEL PINO, PABLO, U. of Málaga, Spain

•             BEZZI, MICHELE, SAP, France

•             BOYD, COLIN, Queensland U. of Tech., Australia

•             COLLBERG, CHRISTIAN, Arizona University, USA

•             CUELLAR, JORGE, Siemens, Germany

•             DAVIDS, CAROL, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA

•             DUSIT NIYATO, Nanyang Technological U., Singapore

•             ENDICOTT-POPOVSKY, BARBARA, U. of Washington, USA

•             FERNANDEZ, EDUARDO B., Florida Atlantic U., USA

•             GIORGINI, PAOLO, University of Trento, Italy

•             GRAWROCK, DAVID, Intel, USA

•             GÜRGENS, SIGRID, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany

•             JÜRJENS, JAN, TU of Dortmund, Germany

•             KIYOMOTO, SHINSAKU, KDDI R&D Labs, Japan

•             LAMBRINOUDAKIS, COSTAS, U. of Piraeus, Greece

•             LAURENCE T. YANG, St Francis Xavier University, Canada

•             LEVI, ALBERT, Sabanci University, Turkey

•             LOEVENICH, DANIEL, Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der
Informationstechnik (BSI), Germany

•             LOSAVIO, MICHAEL, U. of Kentucky, USA

•             LOTZ, VOLKMAR, SAP AG, France

•             MAÑA, ANTONIO, University of Malaga, Spain

•             MARTINELLI, FABIO, CNR-IIT, Italy

•             MARTINEZ-PEREZ, GREGORIO, U. of Murcia, Spain

•             NADARAJAM, R., PSG College of Technology, India

•             POSEGGA, JOAQUM, U. of Passau, Germany

•             PRESENZA, DOMENICO, Engineering, Italy

•             QUISQUATER, JEAN-JACQUES, U. Catholique De Louvain, Belgium

•             RAY, INDRAKSHI, Colorado State University, USA

•             RUDOLPH, CARSTEN, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany

•             SABETTA, ANTONINO, SAP, France

•             SORIA-RODRIGUEZ, PEDRO, ATOS R&D, Spain

•             SKIANIS CHARALABOS, University of Aegean, Greece

•             SPANOUDAKIS, GEORGE, City University, UK

•             WASHIZAKI, HIRONORI, Waseda University, Japan

•             WESPI, ANDREAS, IBM, Switzerland

•             YOSHIOKA, NOBUKAZU, Nat. I. of Informatics, Japan

•             ZULKERNINE, MOHAMMAD, Queen’s U., Canada

 

=============

Submissions

=============

 

Authors are invited to submit Regular Papers (maximum 8 pages) or Short
Papers (maximum 4 pages) using EasyChair. Regular papers will be evaluated
according to normal research conference criteria with respect to relevance,
originality, and quality of the methodology and writing. Work that is highly
novel, controversial, or preliminary can be submitted as a short paper.

Proceedings of IWOCS 2014 will be included in the third ASE International
Conference on Cyber Security, Stanford, CA, USA, May 27 – May 31, 2014.

 

Registration: Online Registration

 

====================

Implementation Plan

====================

 

IWOCS will have a hybrid approach that will combine a traditional scientific
workshop with an interactive forum for discussion of the main workshop
topics, seeking the creation of a community and a clear focus on producing.

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/14ffab4f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Feb  4 07:08:06 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:08:06 +0900
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <E0CCDD48-8DE0-4296-8677-AA9C25D5F807@hserus.net>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E0CCDD48-8DE0-4296-8677-AA9C25D5F807@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjZX+LNpJNupSjG7Jnp5GQz-HNDbq0rMF4TZgyhfNGdTQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Sala for your service, and I have been always impressed with your
optimisim, positive engagement for IGC and larger CS activities including
ICANN AtLarge. Also your push for the interest of (Pacific) Island countries
and people.

I hope you continue to be engaged, with your positiveness.

izumi from Tokyo





2014-02-04 Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>:

> From my side, I thank Sala for her contribution and patience so far, and
> wish her all the best in participating in the caucus as a regular member
> now. Should do wonders for her blood pressure at any rate :)
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 04-Feb-2014, at 14:49, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>
> It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I would
> be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I
> knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.
> :) I had no clue of what was in store.
>
> Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm
> made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list
> from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who
> had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve.
> I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
> collaboration and patience.
>
> At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was
> to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their
> counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them
> for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to
> Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind
> the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar
> has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier
> because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his
> time.
>
> There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if
> people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
> This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
> belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
> IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
> the WSIS.
>
> The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both internally
> and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to
> negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there
> were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such
> as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>
> For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join.
> The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated
> 1:5
>
> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates,
> there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were
> usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the
> pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus
> multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
> discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still
> exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is
> my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different
> perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest
> concerned
>
>  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly
> those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with
> confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are
> diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I
> see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The
> list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC
> will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities
> and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
> and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also
> have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we
> position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>
> To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
> disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to
> resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was
> done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC.
>
> One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
> "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
> easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
> understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
> is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
> stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
> and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
> on some extent on our diplomacy.
>
> Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
> worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your
> insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
> hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
> and welcoming them.
>
> Live and let live!
>
> Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>
> With every best wish for 2014,
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/0a230894/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Feb  4 07:09:31 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:09:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] The Venue for IGF 2014 Istanbul
In-Reply-To: <CAH6F7iOKLKbQDw2L7MJ7dxuJbvr60o8j3uuyq25BSENPSF_iJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH6F7iOKLKbQDw2L7MJ7dxuJbvr60o8j3uuyq25BSENPSF_iJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKivGP90WMfd0r_X4-HG=CvzMwHeEwDH9W5m8L-J=7QBhg@mail.gmail.com>

Just came in.

izumi

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ihsan Durdu <ihsan.durdu at gmail.com>
Date: 2014-02-04
Subject: [IGFmaglist] The Venue for IGF 2014 Istanbul
To: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org


Dear MAG,

I would like to inform you about the venue;

ICC Istanbul, http://www.iccistanbul.com is reserved as the venue for
IGF 2014 Istanbul. The dates for the venue are Sept 2nd thru Sept 5th.
with a high level (Ministerial) on Sept 1st.

I hope you all have an enjoyable time in Istanbul. We will do our best
to show our hospitality.

Kindest

Ihsan Durdu

Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications of Turkey

________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/ba25a5fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 08:44:26 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 09:44:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] report of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee
 (EMC) finak
In-Reply-To: <9D16E7F3-35DF-4A27-9029-403843045D44@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <9D16E7F3-35DF-4A27-9029-403843045D44@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5Ecmms_ja1M0p8X4sxdPTN0y7Goi6FGUQe76bf-uB5Xg@mail.gmail.com>

I fully realise that these are minutes of a meeting.
However on this point:
* Make sure governments do not have rights to decide nominations.
I'm wondering if a more constructive perspective in the future might not be
"to encourage open participation and ensure that no one stakeholder group
has rights to decide nominations"?
It's a little difficult without knowing the context of the decision
Deirdre


On 4 February 2014 07:38, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Final version of the report (minutes) of the EMC's first meeting, January
> 27th, 2014, at:
>
> <
> http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/EMC-Jan-27_Executive-report.pdf
> >
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
"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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/21f72755/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kabani.asif at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 10:40:07 2014
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:40:07 +0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] The Venue for IGF 2014 Istanbul
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKivGP90WMfd0r_X4-HG=CvzMwHeEwDH9W5m8L-J=7QBhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH6F7iOKLKbQDw2L7MJ7dxuJbvr60o8j3uuyq25BSENPSF_iJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YNoKivGP90WMfd0r_X4-HG=CvzMwHeEwDH9W5m8L-J=7QBhg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOzvoR1x9LZNrBPV5owQr2a+m4RQS-pd0=o1=5_8u0ddowpfjA@mail.gmail.com>

Izumi

Many thanks for sharing it.

Sincerely

-------
*Asif Kabani*
*Director*

*Skype: kabaniasif*

*To connect*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
 [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>

[image: www.slideshare.net.png]

http://www.slideshare.net/kabani

Towards A Sustainable Earth:  Print Only When Necessary

------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY:
This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be
confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please
delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.




On 4 February 2014 17:09, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Just came in.
>
> izumi
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ihsan Durdu <ihsan.durdu at gmail.com>
> Date: 2014-02-04
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] The Venue for IGF 2014 Istanbul
> To: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
>
>
> Dear MAG,
>
> I would like to inform you about the venue;
>
> ICC Istanbul, http://www.iccistanbul.com is reserved as the venue for
> IGF 2014 Istanbul. The dates for the venue are Sept 2nd thru Sept 5th.
> with a high level (Ministerial) on Sept 1st.
>
> I hope you all have an enjoyable time in Istanbul. We will do our best
> to show our hospitality.
>
> Kindest
>
> Ihsan Durdu
>
> Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications of Turkey
>
> ________________________
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/48ed8915/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 10:53:07 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:53:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF 2014 Venue
Message-ID: <0D5D9FF5-AFCD-4356-9422-8A5AD18E0A60@gmail.com>

http://www.iccistanbul.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/08b70e23/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 13:37:08 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:37:08 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGF 2014 Venue
In-Reply-To: <0D5D9FF5-AFCD-4356-9422-8A5AD18E0A60@gmail.com>
References: <0D5D9FF5-AFCD-4356-9422-8A5AD18E0A60@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAvehOAoEdNYr1dy7DxUROsGPQb+TRXVvD0Bfc7tZx0xQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Bill


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:53 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.iccistanbul.com
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/1adf750d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 14:15:38 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:15:38 +1200
Subject: [governance] [URGENT Call for Comments] To publish Encrypted Media
 Extensions (EME) heartbeat Working Draft
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDKgniow0WGab7PZv4c-UzdE6URUsop1tu6Aa37vKAu9w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The IGC had on previous occasion supported EFF's objection.

See: *http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf
<http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf>*

Does the IGC have a view on the Working Draft in Paul Cotton's email below.

Andreas K had formally objected and the minority view is recorded by the
Chairs of the WG in [1] and [2].The reasons that were provided in the
following objections was not resolved.  Microsoft and Cable Labs expressly
support the working draft.

 The Chair has advised that the objection will be dealt with by the W3C
Director at a future transition point for EME. he further advised that
objections are NOT dealt with and do not block the publication of
heartbeats Working Drafts.


[1]
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews
[2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html
Kind Regards,
Sala

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton at microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:44 AM
Subject: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat Working
Draft
To: "public-html-admin at w3.org" <public-html-admin at w3.org>


 This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the following heartbeat [1]
Working Draft of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME):




https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-wd.html



Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive responses
are encouraged.  If there are no objections by Tuesday February 11, this
resolution will carry.



/paulc

HTML WG co-chair



[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule



Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/6b6a3b53/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Feb  4 14:33:09 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:33:09 +1100
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKjZX+LNpJNupSjG7Jnp5GQz-HNDbq0rMF4TZgyhfNGdTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com> <E0CCDD48-8DE0-4296-8677-AA9C25D5F807@hserus.net> <CA+YNoKjZX+LNpJNupSjG7Jnp5GQz-HNDbq0rMF4TZgyhfNGdTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E775F8254E8C4DE29C7565287E80356A@Toshiba>

Yes, thanks Sala, for all your efforts during difficult circumstances. You took on a difficult task at a difficult time, and made a great contribution.

Ian

From: Izumi AIZU 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:08 PM
To: governance ; Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
Subject: Re: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator [Goodbye and Thanks]

Thanks Sala for your service, and I have been always impressed with your 
optimisim, positive engagement for IGC and larger CS activities including
ICANN AtLarge. Also your push for the interest of (Pacific) Island countries
and people.

I hope you continue to be engaged, with your positiveness.

izumi from Tokyo






2014-02-04 Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>:

  From my side, I thank Sala for her contribution and patience so far, and wish her all the best in participating in the caucus as a regular member now. Should do wonders for her blood pressure at any rate :)

  --srs (iPad)

  On 04-Feb-2014, at 14:49, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:


    Dear Colleagues, 

    Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,


    It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I would be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood. :) I had no clue of what was in store. 

    Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve. I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their collaboration and patience. 

    At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his time.

    There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc. This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of the WSIS.


    The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both internally and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.

    For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join. The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated 1:5

    When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates, there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest concerned

    I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.

    To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC. 

    One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent on some extent on our diplomacy.

    Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators and welcoming them. 

    Live and let live!

    Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).

    With every best wish for 2014,

    Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala


    ____________________________________________________________
    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
        governance at lists.igcaucus.org
    To be removed from the list, visit:
        http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

    For all other list information and functions, see:
        http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
    To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
        http://www.igcaucus.org/

    Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
  To be removed from the list, visit:
       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

  For all other list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
       http://www.igcaucus.org/

  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t






-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,          
Japan
www.anr.org



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/627457b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From shailam at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  4 15:08:02 2014
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:08:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <E775F8254E8C4DE29C7565287E80356A@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com> <E0CCDD48-8DE0-4296-8677-AA9C25D5F807@hserus.net> <CA+YNoKjZX+LNpJNupSjG7Jnp5GQz-HNDbq0rMF4TZgyhfNGdTQ@mail.gmail.com> <E775F8254E8C4DE29C7565287E80356A@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <1391544482.96214.YahooMailNeo@web121402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Thank you so much Sala for undertaking this leadership role and serving IGC and all of the community.
Thank you for your time and effort.
warm regards 


 Shaila Rao Mistry
 
 
President
StemInstitute
Transforming Ideals into Action
 
President
JAYCOMMI
Input Technology With A Human Touch
 
www.jaycopanels.com
Tel: 951 738 2000
 
MWOSB         

The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !
..................... the renaissance of composure !




On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:34 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
 
Yes, thanks Sala, for all your efforts during difficult circumstances. You 
took on a difficult task at a difficult time, and made a great 
contribution.
 
Ian 
From: Izumi AIZU 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:08 PM
To: governance ; Suresh 
Ramasubramanian 
Cc: Salanieta T. 
Tamanikaiwaimaro 
Subject: Re: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator 
[Goodbye and Thanks]
 
Thanks Sala for your service, and I have been always 
impressed with your 
optimisim, positive engagement for IGC and larger CS activities including
ICANN AtLarge. Also 
your push for the interest of (Pacific) Island countries
and people.
 
I hope you continue to be engaged, with your positiveness.
 
izumi from Tokyo
 
 
 



2014-02-04 Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>:

>From my side, I thank Sala for her contribution and patience so far, and  wish her all the best in participating in the caucus as a regular member now.  Should do wonders for her blood pressure at any rate :)
>
>--srs (iPad)
>
>On 04-Feb-2014, at 14:49, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> 
wrote:
>
>
>Dear Colleagues, 
>> 
>>Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>>
>>
>>It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I  would be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what  I knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.  :) I had no clue of what was in store. 
>> 
>>Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm  made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list  from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who  had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve. I  would like to take this time to especially thank them for their  collaboration and patience. 
>> 
>>At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role  was to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek  their counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of  them for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to  Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind the  scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar has  also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier because  I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his time.
>> 
>>There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved  if people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.  This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers  belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the  IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of  the WSIS.
>>
>> 
>>The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both  internally and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our  capacity to negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was  happening, there were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet  governance such as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>> 
>>For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would  join. The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an  estimated 1:5
>>
>>When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised 
    debates, there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates 
    were usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was 
    the pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root 
    versus multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the 
    discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still 
    exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is 
    my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different 
    perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest 
    concerned
>> 
>>I am continuously surprised that there are many governments  particularly those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can  say with confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC  list are diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a  threat, I see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue,  rationale. The list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope  that the IGC will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to  various entities and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing  things ahead of us and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and  the IGF that we also have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand  our energy as we position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>> 
>>To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and  disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to  resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was  done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC. 
>> 
>>One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be  "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an  easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater  understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It  is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other  stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful  and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent  on some extent on our diplomacy.
>> 
>>Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the  journey worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of  you, your insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your  eyes.  In a few hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing  the new coordinators and welcoming them. 
>> 
>>Live and let live!
>> 
>>Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>> 
>>With every best wish for 2014,
>> 
>>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> 
>> 
>____________________________________________________________
>>You  received this message as a subscriber on the  list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be  removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For  all other list information and functions,  see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To  edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,  see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate  this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>____________________________________________________________
>You 
  received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To 
  be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other 
  list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your 
  profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


 -- 
                     
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, 
Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, 
Oita,          
Japan
www.anr.org

________________________________
 ____________________________________________________________
You received 
this message as a subscriber on the list:
     
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, 
visit:
     
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and 
functions, see:
     
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find 
the IGC's charter, see:
     
http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: 
http://translate.google.com/translate_t


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/ad7398fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From skiden at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 15:50:36 2014
From: skiden at gmail.com (Sarah Kiden)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 23:50:36 +0300
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator [Goodbye
 and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <1391544482.96214.YahooMailNeo@web121402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<E0CCDD48-8DE0-4296-8677-AA9C25D5F807@hserus.net>
	<CA+YNoKjZX+LNpJNupSjG7Jnp5GQz-HNDbq0rMF4TZgyhfNGdTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E775F8254E8C4DE29C7565287E80356A@Toshiba>
	<1391544482.96214.YahooMailNeo@web121402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CABKLyKhukN4G7Wx+2_NmxTU++FqUZ0u+dQXqLh_AmEJxft+5ZA@mail.gmail.com>

Sala,

Thank you for everything you did and for all the sacrifices you made. You
did you job well (I am sure many people will agree with me). We hope to
continue hearing from you as an IGC member. I wish you all the best in your
future endeavors.

Regards,
Sarah

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com');>>
wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>
> It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I would
> be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I
> knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.
> :) I had no clue of what was in store.
>
> Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm
> made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list
> from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who
> had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve.
> I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
> collaboration and patience.
>
> At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was
> to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their
> counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them
> for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to
> Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind
> the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar
> has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier
> because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his
> time.
>
> There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if
> people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
> This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
> belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
> IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
> the WSIS.
>
> The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both internally
> and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to
> negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there
> were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such
> as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>
> For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join.
> The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated
> 1:5
>
> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates,
> there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were
> usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the
> pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus
> multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
> discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still
> exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is
> my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different
> perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest
> concerned
>
>  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly
> those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with
> confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are
> diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I
> see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The
> list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC
> will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities
> and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
> and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also
> have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we
> position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>
> To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
> disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to
> resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was
> done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC.
>
> One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
> "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
> easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
> understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
> is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
> stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
> and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
> on some extent on our diplomacy.
>
> Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
> worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your
> insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
> hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
> and welcoming them.
>
> Live and let live!
>
> Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>
> With every best wish for 2014,
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140204/3241ebf4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Feb  4 23:36:35 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:36:35 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New Coordinators
 of the IGC]
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>

Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
nominations:



1) Deirdre Williams

2) Imran Ahmed Shah

3) Mawaki Chango

4) Mwendwa Kivuva



Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three
remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe
to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list
is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received "Out
of Office" responses from a few.



Following last year's elections and from feedback from the community, this
year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select a
candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated.
Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a
difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.


 Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and now
declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom,
good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.



The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators


Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The elections
was carried out in accordance with the Charter.



Thank you all.



Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/6911d5fc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Feb  5 00:15:08 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 14:15:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKjkht7=pXLe9yB9tvAmh5_ViLdFjyhSjy5YH3u99T4FZg@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks Sala for sharing this.

Congratulations for the two new Co-coordinators,

   - Deirdre Williams - term expires Jan 2016
   - Mawaki Chango - term expires Jan 2015


And asks thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for your continued engagement.

Izumi


2014年2月5日水曜日、Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>さんは書きました:

> Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
> mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
> vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
> nominations:
>
>
>
> 1) Deirdre Williams
>
> 2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> 3) Mawaki Chango
>
> 4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>
>
>
> Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three
> remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
> papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
> things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
> subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
> clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe
> to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
> site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
> get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list
> is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
> subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
> number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received “Out
> of Office” responses from a few.
>
>  Following last year’s elections and from feedback from the community,
> this year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not
> select a candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to
> abstain, thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who
> participated. Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous
> commitment to make a difference in his community in Pakistan and also in
> global forums.
>
>
>  Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
> replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
> term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and
> now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you
> wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>
>
>
> The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>
>
> Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
> Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The
> elections was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>
>
>
> Thank you all.
>
>
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/dfe76ead/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Feb  5 00:17:16 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:17:16 +1100
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B5B831F018384F28A0B8B68F4EAD1D79@Toshiba>

Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki! We had a field of three very good candidates so whatever the result we would have been well served. I look forward to our new beginnings

Ian Peter

From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 3:36 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New Coordinators of the IGC]



Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to formally hand over and now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead. 

 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/4b7bfa46/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 00:24:16 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 09:54:16 +0430
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <B5B831F018384F28A0B8B68F4EAD1D79@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B5B831F018384F28A0B8B68F4EAD1D79@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtNcUxDB=5cHzVThY-tGTftFd2tXE8Gc5a47RLx_=AknSg@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki! This is indeed a strong team
and hats off to IGC for investing their trust in these talents!

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki! We had a field of three very good
> candidates so whatever the result we would have been well served. I look
> forward to our new beginnings
>
> Ian Peter
>
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 3:36 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New Coordinators
> of the IGC]
>
>
> Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
> replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
> term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to formally hand over and now
> declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom,
> good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>
> ________________________________
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Wed Feb  5 00:24:25 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:54:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52F1CB09.8090408@ITforChange.net>

Dear Deirdre and Mawaki,

Congratulations and wishing you all the best.

Guru

On 02/05/2014 10:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
> Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC 
> mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31^st , 2013 both positions 
> were vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the 
> following nominations:
>
> 1) Deirdre Williams
>
> 2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> 3) Mawaki Chango
>
> 4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>
> Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only 
> three remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and 
> preparing ballot papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber 
> database to ensure that things were in order prior to sending the 
> ballot papers. There were some subscribers who had moved and so had 
> inactive email accounts. We had to clean these as well. We also noted 
> that there were some who were subscribe to the mailing list but did 
> not have IGC accounts by registering on the site. We received feedback 
> from some of the subscribers that they did not get ballot papers. The 
> estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list is around 600. The 
> estimated number of account holders who are both subscribed to the 
> mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The number of people 
> who voted was 276. During the elections, we received “Out of Office” 
> responses from a few.
>
> Following last year’s elections and from feedback from the community, 
> this year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not 
> select a candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or 
> to abstain, thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates 
> who participated. Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his 
> continuous commitment to make a difference in his community in 
> Pakistan and also in global forums.
>
>
>  Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term 
> replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one 
> year term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand 
> over* and now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I 
> wish you wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>
> The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>
>
> Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and 
> Jeremy Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. 
> The elections was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>
> Thank you all.
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/b52f08db/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  5 02:14:00 2014
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:14:00 +0000
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To:  <CABKLyKhukN4G7Wx+2_NmxTU++FqUZ0u+dQXqLh_AmEJxft+5ZA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>,<E0CCDD48-8DE0-4296-8677-AA9C25D5F807@hserus.net>,<CA+YNoKjZX+LNpJNupSjG7Jnp5GQz-HNDbq0rMF4TZgyhfNGdTQ@mail.gmail.com>,<E775F8254E8C4DE29C7565287E80356A@Toshiba>,<1391544482.96214.YahooMailNeo@web121402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>,<CABKLyKhukN4G7Wx+2_NmxTU++FqUZ0u+dQXqLh_AmEJxft+5ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DUB111-W27377ED34ACC1365CE5E19B4950@phx.gbl>

+1

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 23:50:36 +0300
From: skiden at gmail.com
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator [Goodbye and Thanks]

Sala,
Thank you for everything you did and for all the sacrifices you made. You did you job well (I am sure many people will agree with me). We hope to continue hearing from you as an IGC member. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. 

Regards,Sarah 

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:


Dear Colleagues,
Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I would be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood. :) I had no clue of what was in store. 



Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve. I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their collaboration and patience. 



At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his time.



There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc. This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of the WSIS.




The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both internally and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.



For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join. The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated 1:5
When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates, there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest concerned



 I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.



To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC. 



One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent on some extent on our diplomacy.



Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators and welcoming them. 



Live and let live!
Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
With every best wish for 2014,
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala








-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/a9758c0d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb  5 02:21:17 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 08:21:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtNcUxDB=5cHzVThY-tGTftFd2tXE8Gc5a47RLx_=AknSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B5B831F018384F28A0B8B68F4EAD1D79@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNcUxDB=5cHzVThY-tGTftFd2tXE8Gc5a47RLx_=AknSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140205082117.50a276f4@quill>

Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki! This is indeed a strong team
> and hats off to IGC for investing their trust in these talents!

+1

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From chlebrum at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 03:31:47 2014
From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 09:31:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
Message-ID: <CANMQhZi+TAPv1oxFRsGddeusQ7x1ckv8vA5u861wCtpb5bZUOw@mail.gmail.com>

+1

Chantal Lebrument
EUROLINC




2014-02-05 6:15 GMT+01:00 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>:

> Many thanks Sala for sharing this.
>
> Congratulations for the two new Co-coordinators,
>
>    - Deirdre Williams - term expires Jan 2016
>    - Mawaki Chango - term expires Jan 2015
>
>
> And asks thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for your continued engagement.
>
> Izumi
>
>
> 2014年2月5日水曜日、Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>さんは書きました:
>
> Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
>> mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
>> vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
>> nominations:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Deirdre Williams
>>
>> 2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>>
>> 3) Mawaki Chango
>>
>> 4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>>
>>
>>
>> Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only
>> three remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing
>> ballot papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure
>> that things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were
>> some subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had
>> to clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were
>> subscribe to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering
>> on the site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they
>> did not get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the
>> mailing list is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are
>> both subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400.
>> The number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received
>> “Out of Office” responses from a few.
>>
>>  Following last year’s elections and from feedback from the community,
>> this year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not
>> select a candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to
>> abstain, thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who
>> participated. Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous
>> commitment to make a difference in his community in Pakistan and also in
>> global forums.
>>
>>
>>  Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
>> replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
>> term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and
>> now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you
>> wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>>
>>
>> Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
>> Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The
>> elections was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/29623ac0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 03:55:10 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:25:10 +0430
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <DUB111-W27377ED34ACC1365CE5E19B4950@phx.gbl>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<E0CCDD48-8DE0-4296-8677-AA9C25D5F807@hserus.net>
	<CA+YNoKjZX+LNpJNupSjG7Jnp5GQz-HNDbq0rMF4TZgyhfNGdTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<E775F8254E8C4DE29C7565287E80356A@Toshiba>
	<1391544482.96214.YahooMailNeo@web121402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CABKLyKhukN4G7Wx+2_NmxTU++FqUZ0u+dQXqLh_AmEJxft+5ZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<DUB111-W27377ED34ACC1365CE5E19B4950@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtPxquLbNcxWMou62SOiQVpH8Qr5cmbg9=qELG869O9j6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sala,

I would like to extend my appreciation for your contributions and
dedication to the coordination and work of the IGC. I congratulate you
for managing this task with patience and hard work! It was indeed a
difficult task but you did well! Take care and wish you success in
your personal endeavors!

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 23:50:36 +0300
> From: skiden at gmail.com
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
> Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator [Goodbye
> and Thanks]
>
>
> Sala,
>
> Thank you for everything you did and for all the sacrifices you made. You
> did you job well (I am sure many people will agree with me). We hope to
> continue hearing from you as an IGC member. I wish you all the best in your
> future endeavors.
>
> Regards,
> Sarah
>
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>
> It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I would be
> interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I knew
> about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood. :) I
> had no clue of what was in store.
>
> Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm made
> it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list from
> the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who had
> been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve. I
> would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
> collaboration and patience.
>
> At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was to
> communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their
> counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them
> for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to Norbert
> Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind the scenes.
> It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar has also been
> extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier because I had
> people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his time.
>
> There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if
> people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc. This
> is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
> belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
> IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
> the WSIS.
>
> The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both internally
> and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to
> negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there
> were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such
> as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>
> For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join.
> The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated
> 1:5
>
> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates,
> there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were usually
> between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the pro ITU
> camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus multiple
> root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the discussions mature
> from the polarizations and whilst the differences still exist, they are not
> as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is my hope that we can
> channel these diversities to show case the different perspectives in
> relation to the issues as we address global public interest concerned
>
>  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly
> those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with
> confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are
> diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I
> see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The
> list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC
> will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities
> and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
> and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also
> have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we
> position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>
> To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
> disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to
> resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was
> done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC.
>
> One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
> "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
> easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
> understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
> is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
> stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
> and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
> on some extent on our diplomacy.
>
> Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
> worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your
> insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
> hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
> and welcoming them.
>
> Live and let live!
>
> Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>
> With every best wish for 2014,
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 04:12:34 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 09:12:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CANMQhZi+TAPv1oxFRsGddeusQ7x1ckv8vA5u861wCtpb5bZUOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANMQhZi+TAPv1oxFRsGddeusQ7x1ckv8vA5u861wCtpb5bZUOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh11SrE6HJwAGaW2SxthcJF755wB65y3C+CvYS+1nPjYzVQ@mail.gmail.com>

I'm happy that we've come this far. Dee, you have our support, full and
overflowing.
I'm personally convinced that your experience and personality are just
perfect to facilitate IGC out of the current situation into a better status.

Mawaki, we are happy to have your cool and analytical spirit. And hell,
yes! It is good to have someone who understands French and Portuguese...

I wish you both all the very best!

N


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:31 AM, chlebrum . <chlebrum at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Chantal Lebrument
> EUROLINC
>
>
>
>
> 2014-02-05 6:15 GMT+01:00 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>:
>
>>  Many thanks Sala for sharing this.
>>
>> Congratulations for the two new Co-coordinators,
>>
>>    - Deirdre Williams - term expires Jan 2016
>>    - Mawaki Chango - term expires Jan 2015
>>
>>
>> And asks thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for your continued engagement.
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>>
>> 2014年2月5日水曜日、Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>さんは書きました:
>>
>>  Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
>>> mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
>>> vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
>>> nominations:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) Deirdre Williams
>>>
>>> 2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>>>
>>> 3) Mawaki Chango
>>>
>>> 4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only
>>> three remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing
>>> ballot papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure
>>> that things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were
>>> some subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had
>>> to clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were
>>> subscribe to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering
>>> on the site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they
>>> did not get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the
>>> mailing list is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are
>>> both subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400.
>>> The number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received
>>> “Out of Office” responses from a few.
>>>
>>>  Following last year’s elections and from feedback from the community,
>>> this year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not
>>> select a candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to
>>> abstain, thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who
>>> participated. Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous
>>> commitment to make a difference in his community in Pakistan and also in
>>> global forums.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
>>> replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
>>> term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and
>>> now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you
>>> wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Election results can be viewed at
>>> http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>>>
>>>
>>> Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
>>> Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The
>>> elections was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>> Japan
>> www.anr.org
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/73c981f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From aminou20022001 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  5 04:34:25 2014
From: aminou20022001 at yahoo.com (Aminou Ndala TITA)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 01:34:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
Message-ID: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>


Hello
I am happy to have voted this time.
Congratlation and good luck to the new coordinators.

Ta taa


------------------------------
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 11:36 PM EST Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

>Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
>mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
>vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
>nominations:
>
>
>
>1) Deirdre Williams
>
>2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>
>3) Mawaki Chango
>
>4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>
>
>
>Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three
>remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
>papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
>things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
>subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
>clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe
>to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
>site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
>get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list
>is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
>subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
>number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received "Out
>of Office" responses from a few.
>
>
>
>Following last year's elections and from feedback from the community, this
>year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select a
>candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
>thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated.
>Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a
>difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
>
>
> Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
>replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
>term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and now
>declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom,
>good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>
>
>
>The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>
>
>Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
>Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The elections
>was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>
>
>
>Thank you all.
>
>
>
>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kichango at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 05:44:49 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:44:49 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

This is not an inaugural speech -- although if I had to deliver one it
would rather sound like a war-time Churchillian speech :-)
As I am preparing to travel and will be traveling quite a bit over the next
several weeks for work assignments, I want to make sure I acknowledge the
results before I run out of airtime on my mobile connection :(

So first of all, thank you all for your votes, your nice and congratulatory
words, your support and encouragement --here and off-list.
Thank you to Sala and her visible and invisible voluntary staff in the
handling of this election. Thanks again to her, Norbert and all previous
co-coordinators for having brought us this far. I am humbled by both the
great history of IGC and the rumble (or at best, in the limbo) it seems to
find itself in these days, and will try to mobilize the best and every good
will I am ever capable of to try and correct our path with your support and
good will (please) as well.

Be also sure that while I may be relatively silent in the coming days,
maybe weeks, I will be revisiting and studying the Caucus Charter and
liaising with my fellow co-co in order to organize our approach to this
responsibility.

Speaking of whom... My heartfelt congratulations to Deirdre for having won
a whopping 2/3 (okay, nearly 2/3) of the votes. Now that's a mandate! I
could not have imagined a better result for the 2-year ride (whew, I dodged
that one! :-)), as I stand ready to be guided by your wisdom, good
judgement and good temper (we're desperately in need of this, as you know.)

Merci a tous pour vos votes, votre soutien et vos mots d'encouragement, ici
comme en privé. Je mesure la lourdeur de la tache qui nous attend et
essayerai de faire de mon mieux pour favoriser une participation plurielle
et aider ce Caucus a retrouver sa grandeur ou en tout cas la pertinence
qu'il eut dans un passé pas si lointain.

Cordialement, a votre service!

Mawaki
Co-coordinator Elect/ Incoming Co-coordinator
as you wish
Your servant, in any case.


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Aminou Ndala TITA
<aminou20022001 at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> Hello
> I am happy to have voted this time.
> Congratlation and good luck to the new coordinators.
>
> Ta taa
>
>
> ------------------------------
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 11:36 PM EST Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
> >Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
> >mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
> >vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
> >nominations:
> >
> >
> >
> >1) Deirdre Williams
> >
> >2) Imran Ahmed Shah
> >
> >3) Mawaki Chango
> >
> >4) Mwendwa Kivuva
> >
> >
> >
> >Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three
> >remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
> >papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
> >things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
> >subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
> >clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe
> >to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
> >site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
> >get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list
> >is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
> >subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
> >number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received "Out
> >of Office" responses from a few.
> >
> >
> >
> >Following last year's elections and from feedback from the community, this
> >year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select a
> >candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
> >thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated.
> >Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a
> >difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
> >
> >
> > Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
> >replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
> >term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and
> now
> >declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom,
> >good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
> >
> >
> >
> >The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
> >
> >
> >Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
> >Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The
> elections
> >was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thank you all.
> >
> >
> >
> >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/362ae4d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ginger at paque.net  Wed Feb  5 07:33:55 2014
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:33:55 -0600
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALCecM9eJHaS1pbmk8Cfcdy+f8Lhzy4+ewk7_gDDKjpuwSMAWA@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations and appreciation to Sala, for a job well done, in a complex
time for the IGC and IG.

I am continually amazed by Sala's energy and perseverance in difficult
situations. Thank you Sala!!!

Warm wishes, Ginger


On 4 February 2014 03:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>
>  It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I would
> be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I
> knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.
> :) I had no clue of what was in store.
>
> Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm
> made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list
> from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who
> had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve.
> I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
> collaboration and patience.
>
> At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was
> to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their
> counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them
> for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to
> Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind
> the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar
> has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier
> because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his
> time.
>
> There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if
> people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
> This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
> belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
> IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
> the WSIS.
>
> The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both internally
> and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to
> negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there
> were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such
> as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>
> For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join.
> The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated
> 1:5
>
> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates,
> there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were
> usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the
> pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus
> multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
> discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still
> exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is
> my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different
> perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest
> concerned
>
>  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly
> those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with
> confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are
> diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I
> see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The
> list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC
> will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities
> and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
> and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also
> have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we
> position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>
> To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
> disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to
> resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was
> done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC.
>
> One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
> "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
> easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
> understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
> is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
> stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
> and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
> on some extent on our diplomacy.
>
> Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
> worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your
> insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
> hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
> and welcoming them.
>
> Live and let live!
>
> Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>
> With every best wish for 2014,
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/abe46cf3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ginger at paque.net  Wed Feb  5 07:37:54 2014
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 06:37:54 -0600
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALCecM-QvjBaG2_gZd8_7J9avxsugGR8o7yCXnDX-FdhUrMnPg@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations to the IGC, to Imran, Mawaki and De!

This was an excellent election, with great possibilities and excellent
results. Thanks to Imran, Mawaki and De (and Sala) for making it so.

Good luck to Mawaki and De!

Warm wishes, Ginger


On 5 February 2014 04:44, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> This is not an inaugural speech -- although if I had to deliver one it
> would rather sound like a war-time Churchillian speech :-)
> As I am preparing to travel and will be traveling quite a bit over the
> next several weeks for work assignments, I want to make sure I acknowledge
> the results before I run out of airtime on my mobile connection :(
>
> So first of all, thank you all for your votes, your nice and
> congratulatory words, your support and encouragement --here and off-list.
> Thank you to Sala and her visible and invisible voluntary staff in the
> handling of this election. Thanks again to her, Norbert and all previous
> co-coordinators for having brought us this far. I am humbled by both the
> great history of IGC and the rumble (or at best, in the limbo) it seems to
> find itself in these days, and will try to mobilize the best and every good
> will I am ever capable of to try and correct our path with your support and
> good will (please) as well.
>
> Be also sure that while I may be relatively silent in the coming days,
> maybe weeks, I will be revisiting and studying the Caucus Charter and
> liaising with my fellow co-co in order to organize our approach to this
> responsibility.
>
> Speaking of whom... My heartfelt congratulations to Deirdre for having won
> a whopping 2/3 (okay, nearly 2/3) of the votes. Now that's a mandate! I
> could not have imagined a better result for the 2-year ride (whew, I dodged
> that one! :-)), as I stand ready to be guided by your wisdom, good
> judgement and good temper (we're desperately in need of this, as you know.)
>
> Merci a tous pour vos votes, votre soutien et vos mots d'encouragement,
> ici comme en privé. Je mesure la lourdeur de la tache qui nous attend et
> essayerai de faire de mon mieux pour favoriser une participation plurielle
> et aider ce Caucus a retrouver sa grandeur ou en tout cas la pertinence
> qu'il eut dans un passé pas si lointain.
>
> Cordialement, a votre service!
>
> Mawaki
> Co-coordinator Elect/ Incoming Co-coordinator
> as you wish
> Your servant, in any case.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Aminou Ndala TITA <
> aminou20022001 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello
>> I am happy to have voted this time.
>> Congratlation and good luck to the new coordinators.
>>
>> Ta taa
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 11:36 PM EST Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>
>> >Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
>> >mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
>> >vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
>> >nominations:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >1) Deirdre Williams
>> >
>> >2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>> >
>> >3) Mawaki Chango
>> >
>> >4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only
>> three
>> >remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
>> >papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
>> >things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
>> >subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
>> >clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were
>> subscribe
>> >to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
>> >site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
>> >get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing
>> list
>> >is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
>> >subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
>> >number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received
>> "Out
>> >of Office" responses from a few.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Following last year's elections and from feedback from the community,
>> this
>> >year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select
>> a
>> >candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
>> >thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated.
>> >Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make
>> a
>> >difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
>> >
>> >
>> > Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
>> >replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one
>> year
>> >term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and
>> now
>> >declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom,
>> >good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >The Election results can be viewed at
>> http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>> >
>> >
>> >Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
>> >Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The
>> elections
>> >was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Thank you all.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/ee09fa22/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  5 08:43:33 2014
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 05:43:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKjkht7=pXLe9yB9tvAmh5_ViLdFjyhSjy5YH3u99T4FZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+YNoKjkht7=pXLe9yB9tvAmh5_ViLdFjyhSjy5YH3u99T4FZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1391607813.89617.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Dear Sala, thank you very much for your support and announcement regarding the IGC Election.

Many congratulations to Ms Deirdre and Mr Mawaki on winning the Co-ordinators Election.

Dear Izumi, Thanks for your comments. I am still commitment to support the caucus as well as with the coordinators.

Please feel free to ask me for help or any support if you need.


Thanking you and Best Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah


>________________________________
> From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> 
>Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2014, 10:15
>Subject: Re: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New Coordinators of the IGC]
> 
>
>
>Many thanks Sala for sharing this.
>
>
>Congratulations for the two new Co-coordinators,
>	* Deirdre Williams - term expires Jan 2016
>	* Mawaki Chango - term expires Jan 2015
>
>
>And asks thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for your continued engagement.
>
>
>Izumi
>
>
>
>2014年2月5日水曜日、Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>さんは書きました:
>
>Calls for expressions
of interest or nominations were made on the IGC mailing list in June, 2013.By
December 31st, 2013 both positions were vacant. During the calls for
election, we had received the following nominations:
>> 
>>1) Deirdre Williams
>>2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>>3) Mawaki Chango
>>4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>> 
>>Prior to holding the
elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three remaining candidates.
Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot papers, we had to verify
and check our subscriber database to ensure that things were in order prior to
sending the ballot papers. There were some subscribers who had moved and so had
inactive email accounts. We had to clean these as well. We also noted that
there were some who were subscribe to the mailing list but did not have IGC
accounts by registering on the site. We received feedback from some of the
subscribers that they did not get ballot papers. The estimated number of
subscribers to the mailing list is around 600. The estimated number of account
holders who are both subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is
around 400. The number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we
received “Out of Office” responses from a few.
>> Following last year’s
elections and from feedback from the community, this year we introduced the
abstention category allowing people to not select a candidate. To all those who
exercised their right to vote or to abstain, thank you. Special thanks to ALL the
amazing candidates who participated. Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his
continuous commitment to make a difference in his community in Pakistan and
also in global forums.
>>
>>
>> Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the
two year term replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the
one year term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to formally hand over and now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead. 
>> 
>>The Election results
can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>>
>>
>>Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy Malcolm for being superstars in facilitating the elections. The elections was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>> 
>>Thank you all.
>> 
>>Salanieta
Tamanikaiwaimaro
>
>-- 
>                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
>Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,          
>Japan
>www.anr.org
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/e7ed6e98/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 08:57:32 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 09:57:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
Thank you all so very much for this expression of confidence. I promise to
do my very best not to disappoint.
Congratulations Mawaki.
Thank you Imran.
And thank you everyone who has put in so much hard work up to now.
And for all the kind messages of congratulation and support.
Best wishes from Saint Lucia in the currently sunshine and showers Caribbean
Deirdre


On 5 February 2014 06:44, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> This is not an inaugural speech -- although if I had to deliver one it
> would rather sound like a war-time Churchillian speech :-)
> As I am preparing to travel and will be traveling quite a bit over the
> next several weeks for work assignments, I want to make sure I acknowledge
> the results before I run out of airtime on my mobile connection :(
>
> So first of all, thank you all for your votes, your nice and
> congratulatory words, your support and encouragement --here and off-list.
> Thank you to Sala and her visible and invisible voluntary staff in the
> handling of this election. Thanks again to her, Norbert and all previous
> co-coordinators for having brought us this far. I am humbled by both the
> great history of IGC and the rumble (or at best, in the limbo) it seems to
> find itself in these days, and will try to mobilize the best and every good
> will I am ever capable of to try and correct our path with your support and
> good will (please) as well.
>
> Be also sure that while I may be relatively silent in the coming days,
> maybe weeks, I will be revisiting and studying the Caucus Charter and
> liaising with my fellow co-co in order to organize our approach to this
> responsibility.
>
> Speaking of whom... My heartfelt congratulations to Deirdre for having won
> a whopping 2/3 (okay, nearly 2/3) of the votes. Now that's a mandate! I
> could not have imagined a better result for the 2-year ride (whew, I dodged
> that one! :-)), as I stand ready to be guided by your wisdom, good
> judgement and good temper (we're desperately in need of this, as you know.)
>
> Merci a tous pour vos votes, votre soutien et vos mots d'encouragement,
> ici comme en privé. Je mesure la lourdeur de la tache qui nous attend et
> essayerai de faire de mon mieux pour favoriser une participation plurielle
> et aider ce Caucus a retrouver sa grandeur ou en tout cas la pertinence
> qu'il eut dans un passé pas si lointain.
>
> Cordialement, a votre service!
>
> Mawaki
> Co-coordinator Elect/ Incoming Co-coordinator
> as you wish
> Your servant, in any case.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Aminou Ndala TITA <
> aminou20022001 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello
>> I am happy to have voted this time.
>> Congratlation and good luck to the new coordinators.
>>
>> Ta taa
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 11:36 PM EST Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>
>> >Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
>> >mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
>> >vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
>> >nominations:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >1) Deirdre Williams
>> >
>> >2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>> >
>> >3) Mawaki Chango
>> >
>> >4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only
>> three
>> >remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
>> >papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
>> >things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
>> >subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
>> >clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were
>> subscribe
>> >to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
>> >site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
>> >get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing
>> list
>> >is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
>> >subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
>> >number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received
>> "Out
>> >of Office" responses from a few.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Following last year's elections and from feedback from the community,
>> this
>> >year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select
>> a
>> >candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
>> >thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated.
>> >Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make
>> a
>> >difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
>> >
>> >
>> > Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
>> >replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one
>> year
>> >term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and
>> now
>> >declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom,
>> >good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >The Election results can be viewed at
>> http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>> >
>> >
>> >Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
>> >Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The
>> elections
>> >was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Thank you all.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/f61ef9de/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 08:59:32 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 09:59:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <CALCecM9eJHaS1pbmk8Cfcdy+f8Lhzy4+ewk7_gDDKjpuwSMAWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCecM9eJHaS1pbmk8Cfcdy+f8Lhzy4+ewk7_gDDKjpuwSMAWA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN40vJsafOqc_gTFkzuzmj0P8AKmNk-xXkCzYT=R+kP-vg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sala,
I wish I had half of your energy.
Thank you so much for everything that you've done
Big hugs
De


On 5 February 2014 08:33, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:

> Congratulations and appreciation to Sala, for a job well done, in a
> complex time for the IGC and IG.
>
> I am continually amazed by Sala's energy and perseverance in difficult
> situations. Thank you Sala!!!
>
> Warm wishes, Ginger
>
>
> On 4 February 2014 03:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>>
>>  It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I
>> would be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what
>> I knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.
>> :) I had no clue of what was in store.
>>
>> Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm
>> made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list
>> from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who
>> had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve.
>> I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
>> collaboration and patience.
>>
>> At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was
>> to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their
>> counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them
>> for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to
>> Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind
>> the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar
>> has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier
>> because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his
>> time.
>>
>> There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if
>> people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
>> This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
>> belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
>> IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
>> the WSIS.
>>
>> The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both
>> internally and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our
>> capacity to negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was
>> happening, there were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of
>> internet governance such as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>>
>> For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join.
>> The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated
>> 1:5
>>
>> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates,
>> there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were
>> usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the
>> pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus
>> multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
>> discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still
>> exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is
>> my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different
>> perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest
>> concerned
>>
>>  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly
>> those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with
>> confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are
>> diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I
>> see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The
>> list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC
>> will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities
>> and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
>> and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also
>> have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we
>> position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>>
>> To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
>> disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to
>> resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was
>> done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC.
>>
>> One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
>> "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
>> easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
>> understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
>> is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
>> stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
>> and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
>> on some extent on our diplomacy.
>>
>> Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
>> worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your
>> insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
>> hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
>> and welcoming them.
>>
>> Live and let live!
>>
>> Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>>
>> With every best wish for 2014,
>>
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
"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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/8a12ddbd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From soekpe at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 09:57:08 2014
From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:57:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALLeeavoea73kpiqGJuQ6xOVig-1KSq9HCiVWw-OdLcnMzjnqw@mail.gmail.com>

+1.
Congrats to Deirde and Mawaki for success at the poll.
My great friend Imran keep it up.

Many thanks to all great friends and fellows.

Sonigitu Ekpe

Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179
 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"



On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear All,
> Thank you all so very much for this expression of confidence. I promise to
> do my very best not to disappoint.
> Congratulations Mawaki.
> Thank you Imran.
> And thank you everyone who has put in so much hard work up to now.
> And for all the kind messages of congratulation and support.
> Best wishes from Saint Lucia in the currently sunshine and showers
> Caribbean
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 5 February 2014 06:44, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> This is not an inaugural speech -- although if I had to deliver one it
>> would rather sound like a war-time Churchillian speech :-)
>> As I am preparing to travel and will be traveling quite a bit over the
>> next several weeks for work assignments, I want to make sure I acknowledge
>> the results before I run out of airtime on my mobile connection :(
>>
>> So first of all, thank you all for your votes, your nice and
>> congratulatory words, your support and encouragement --here and off-list.
>> Thank you to Sala and her visible and invisible voluntary staff in the
>> handling of this election. Thanks again to her, Norbert and all previous
>> co-coordinators for having brought us this far. I am humbled by both the
>> great history of IGC and the rumble (or at best, in the limbo) it seems to
>> find itself in these days, and will try to mobilize the best and every good
>> will I am ever capable of to try and correct our path with your support and
>> good will (please) as well.
>>
>> Be also sure that while I may be relatively silent in the coming days,
>> maybe weeks, I will be revisiting and studying the Caucus Charter and
>> liaising with my fellow co-co in order to organize our approach to this
>> responsibility.
>>
>> Speaking of whom... My heartfelt congratulations to Deirdre for having
>> won a whopping 2/3 (okay, nearly 2/3) of the votes. Now that's a mandate! I
>> could not have imagined a better result for the 2-year ride (whew, I dodged
>> that one! :-)), as I stand ready to be guided by your wisdom, good
>> judgement and good temper (we're desperately in need of this, as you know.)
>>
>> Merci a tous pour vos votes, votre soutien et vos mots d'encouragement,
>> ici comme en privé. Je mesure la lourdeur de la tache qui nous attend et
>> essayerai de faire de mon mieux pour favoriser une participation plurielle
>> et aider ce Caucus a retrouver sa grandeur ou en tout cas la pertinence
>> qu'il eut dans un passé pas si lointain.
>>
>> Cordialement, a votre service!
>>
>> Mawaki
>> Co-coordinator Elect/ Incoming Co-coordinator
>> as you wish
>> Your servant, in any case.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Aminou Ndala TITA <
>> aminou20022001 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello
>>> I am happy to have voted this time.
>>> Congratlation and good luck to the new coordinators.
>>>
>>> Ta taa
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 11:36 PM EST Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>
>>> >Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
>>> >mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
>>> >vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
>>> >nominations:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >1) Deirdre Williams
>>> >
>>> >2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>>> >
>>> >3) Mawaki Chango
>>> >
>>> >4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only
>>> three
>>> >remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing
>>> ballot
>>> >papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure
>>> that
>>> >things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
>>> >subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
>>> >clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were
>>> subscribe
>>> >to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
>>> >site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did
>>> not
>>> >get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing
>>> list
>>> >is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
>>> >subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
>>> >number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received
>>> "Out
>>> >of Office" responses from a few.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Following last year's elections and from feedback from the community,
>>> this
>>> >year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not
>>> select a
>>> >candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
>>> >thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who
>>> participated.
>>> >Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to
>>> make a
>>> >difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
>>> >replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one
>>> year
>>> >term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and
>>> now
>>> >declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you
>>> wisdom,
>>> >good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >The Election results can be viewed at
>>> http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
>>> >Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The
>>> elections
>>> >was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Thank you all.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/96aaaeb8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From sdkaaa at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 11:05:42 2014
From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:05:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CALLeeavoea73kpiqGJuQ6xOVig-1KSq9HCiVWw-OdLcnMzjnqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALLeeavoea73kpiqGJuQ6xOVig-1KSq9HCiVWw-OdLcnMzjnqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAALUBLSU5WTa27+afWYYGA1F3ZV4u8PNw4_FP--CMPyWYGGhBg@mail.gmail.com>

Congrats and good luck for Deirdre and Mawaki!
Best,
Bernard
--
Bernard Sadaka
Remote Participation Expert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/e7ca19ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 11:18:30 2014
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 11:18:30 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAALUBLSU5WTa27+afWYYGA1F3ZV4u8PNw4_FP--CMPyWYGGhBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALLeeavoea73kpiqGJuQ6xOVig-1KSq9HCiVWw-OdLcnMzjnqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAALUBLSU5WTa27+afWYYGA1F3ZV4u8PNw4_FP--CMPyWYGGhBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLuu2KyJT4pLJ6SdxYs2H5Bt1w7tN6ZBVNfDoSLV6C=Y2w@mail.gmail.com>

Mis felicitaciones a los nuevos elegidos...
Espero que se renueve las políticas de comunicación con los miembros,
y se deje de proponer y elegir a dedo...


Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo


2014-02-05 Bernard Sadaka <sdkaaa at gmail.com>:
> Congrats and good luck for Deirdre and Mawaki!
> Best,
> Bernard
> --
> Bernard Sadaka
> Remote Participation Expert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 squ24n at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 11:32:40 2014
From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 01:32:40 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAALUBLSU5WTa27+afWYYGA1F3ZV4u8PNw4_FP--CMPyWYGGhBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALLeeavoea73kpiqGJuQ6xOVig-1KSq9HCiVWw-OdLcnMzjnqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAALUBLSU5WTa27+afWYYGA1F3ZV4u8PNw4_FP--CMPyWYGGhBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPOQ43DTp=0jLWcCZV6p+Gv3hhdwq0D=WfNqFYWqEL_mBPq-BA@mail.gmail.com>

+1
Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki!

Borami


2014-02-06 Bernard Sadaka <sdkaaa at gmail.com>:

> Congrats and good luck for Deirdre and Mawaki!
> Best,
> Bernard
> --
> Bernard Sadaka
> Remote Participation Expert
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/76ff52c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fatimacambronero at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 13:20:04 2014
From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:20:04 -0200
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN40vJsafOqc_gTFkzuzmj0P8AKmNk-xXkCzYT=R+kP-vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALCecM9eJHaS1pbmk8Cfcdy+f8Lhzy4+ewk7_gDDKjpuwSMAWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN40vJsafOqc_gTFkzuzmj0P8AKmNk-xXkCzYT=R+kP-vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHY4F=x03vwo8ehrQmioY1LNgLkOvFbBWqZjwcAGZ=+zk0pe2Q@mail.gmail.com>

+1
Thanks Sala for your hard work during difficult times.
We hope you continue engaged to the IGC issues.

All the best,
Fatima


2014-02-05 Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>:

> Dear Sala,
> I wish I had half of your energy.
> Thank you so much for everything that you've done
> Big hugs
> De
>
>
> On 5 February 2014 08:33, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:
>
>> Congratulations and appreciation to Sala, for a job well done, in a
>> complex time for the IGC and IG.
>>
>> I am continually amazed by Sala's energy and perseverance in difficult
>> situations. Thank you Sala!!!
>>
>> Warm wishes, Ginger
>>
>>
>> On 4 February 2014 03:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>
>>> Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>>>
>>>  It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I
>>> would be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what
>>> I knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.
>>> :) I had no clue of what was in store.
>>>
>>> Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm
>>> made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list
>>> from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who
>>> had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve.
>>> I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
>>> collaboration and patience.
>>>
>>> At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role
>>> was to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek
>>> their counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all
>>> of them for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also
>>> to Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind
>>> the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar
>>> has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier
>>> because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his
>>> time.
>>>
>>> There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved
>>> if people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
>>> This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
>>> belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
>>> IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
>>> the WSIS.
>>>
>>> The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both
>>> internally and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our
>>> capacity to negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was
>>> happening, there were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of
>>> internet governance such as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>>>
>>> For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would
>>> join. The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an
>>> estimated 1:5
>>>
>>> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised
>>> debates, there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates
>>> were usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was
>>> the pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root
>>> versus multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
>>> discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still
>>> exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is
>>> my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different
>>> perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest
>>> concerned
>>>
>>>  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments
>>> particularly those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can
>>> say with confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC
>>> list are diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a
>>> threat, I see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue,
>>> rationale. The list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope
>>> that the IGC will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to
>>> various entities and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing
>>> things ahead of us and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and
>>> the IGF that we also have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand
>>> our energy as we position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>>>
>>> To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
>>> disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to
>>> resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was
>>> done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC.
>>>
>>> One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
>>> "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
>>> easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
>>> understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
>>> is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
>>> stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
>>> and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
>>> on some extent on our diplomacy.
>>>
>>> Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
>>> worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your
>>> insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
>>> hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
>>> and welcoming them.
>>>
>>> Live and let live!
>>>
>>> Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>>>
>>> With every best wish for 2014,
>>>
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "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
>
>


-- 
*Fatima Cambronero*
Abogada-Argentina

Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
Twitter: @facambronero
Skype: fatima.cambronero

*Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:*
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

*Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:*
http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/

*Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/515dce8c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fatimacambronero at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 13:26:13 2014
From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:26:13 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAPOQ43DTp=0jLWcCZV6p+Gv3hhdwq0D=WfNqFYWqEL_mBPq-BA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALLeeavoea73kpiqGJuQ6xOVig-1KSq9HCiVWw-OdLcnMzjnqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAALUBLSU5WTa27+afWYYGA1F3ZV4u8PNw4_FP--CMPyWYGGhBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPOQ43DTp=0jLWcCZV6p+Gv3hhdwq0D=WfNqFYWqEL_mBPq-BA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHY4F=zdMgz8tU1z1m=pypa+ze1C0sgpWx=yaZTDKn9t=TQWsg@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations Dee and Mawaki!
I wish you both all the best!

Fatima


2014-02-05 Borami Kim <squ24n at gmail.com>:

> +1
> Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki!
>
> Borami
>
>
> 2014-02-06 Bernard Sadaka <sdkaaa at gmail.com>:
>
>> Congrats and good luck for Deirdre and Mawaki!
>> Best,
>> Bernard
>> --
>> Bernard Sadaka
>> Remote Participation Expert
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*Fatima Cambronero*
Abogada-Argentina

Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
Twitter: @facambronero
Skype: fatima.cambronero

*Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:*
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

*Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:*
http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/

*Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/ef81dedf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 14:36:43 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:36:43 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAHY4F=zdMgz8tU1z1m=pypa+ze1C0sgpWx=yaZTDKn9t=TQWsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALLeeavoea73kpiqGJuQ6xOVig-1KSq9HCiVWw-OdLcnMzjnqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAALUBLSU5WTa27+afWYYGA1F3ZV4u8PNw4_FP--CMPyWYGGhBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPOQ43DTp=0jLWcCZV6p+Gv3hhdwq0D=WfNqFYWqEL_mBPq-BA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHY4F=zdMgz8tU1z1m=pypa+ze1C0sgpWx=yaZTDKn9t=TQWsg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3-T3zt3Dwq5HUhwXDKKFkV8phY=Ho-FgZ88TmnMOFYSw@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations to both! Excellent indeed!
Best wishes!
Marília


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Fatima Cambronero <
fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote:

> Congratulations Dee and Mawaki!
> I wish you both all the best!
>
> Fatima
>
>
> 2014-02-05 Borami Kim <squ24n at gmail.com>:
>
> +1
>> Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki!
>>
>> Borami
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-06 Bernard Sadaka <sdkaaa at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>  Congrats and good luck for Deirdre and Mawaki!
>>> Best,
>>> Bernard
>>> --
>>> Bernard Sadaka
>>> Remote Participation Expert
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Fatima Cambronero*
> Abogada-Argentina
>
> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
> Twitter: @facambronero
> Skype: fatima.cambronero
>
> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:*
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:*
> http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/
>
> *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140205/19710b27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Feb  5 15:16:01 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:16:01 +1200
Subject: [governance] Advocacy Updates/ Was [Final Message to the IGC as
 co-coordinator [Goodbye > and Thanks] >
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC7LsEgMTNg+rZt44nv_GTJY8uSoMBzCcSfU5X9T2Baiw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,


Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude for the notes of
appreciation. It was a pleasure to serve. Thank you also to all of you for
the work that you continue to do on the ground to make a difference in the
lives of the communities that you are in. Special thanks and commendations
who do work on the ground in the face of extreme violence and terror.

*Support for the Coordinators*
As you can imagine, the co-coordinators are both new and transitioning into
the role and so I hope that we can give them space to ease into their
roles. They will need all our support and encouragement.

These are brief updates on some areas, people can add to this (Feel Free)
 from *what they see happening* or what t*hey are directly involved in* that
demands involvement or input.

*Open MAG Consultations*
In the meantime, there are some pending matters such as the *Open MAG
consultations* that is still open. There are currently two threads.

*Brazil Preparations*
Brazil Preparations: Norbert has started on the etherpad. For those who are
are interested in following the 1Net discussions, feel free to visit:
http://forum.1net.org/ They have recently created a discussion board that
will complement the mailing list.

*Encrypted Media Extensions #Digital Rights Management*
For those who want to individually object to the W3C WG developments on the
working draft on EME in the area of Digital Rights Management that is going
to cease calls for support or objections on February 11 - you will need to
join the working group to comment and offer your objection or support. Paul
Cotton from Microsoft opened the call for comments and it closes on the
11th February. Silence is deemed as support in that working group. Norbert
and I had joined this working group after the IGC published its statement
in support for EFF.

*Review System of the current Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone
DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies.*
For those who are interested in commenting on the *Review System of the
current **Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing
Ceremonies*, feel free to visit: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag The
relevant documents are all posted on the link and you can choose to comment
through this or directly with the Review Team. At the moments, TCR terms
are indefinite and they are self funding and there are calls for review
whether the current model in place is adequate or whether changes should be
introduced.

*Human Rights *
*Pakistan*
I would also like to acknowledge the excellent Advocacy work currently
being done in Pakistan by Shahzad Ahmad in Bytes for All, Nighat Dad in the
Digital Rights Foundation, Fouad Bajwa and Imran Ahmed Shah in Pakistan.
Most of you would have been aware of the plight of threats to open and free
expression. This is to formally commend them and celebrate their work.

*Tunisia*
This is also to commend the work done on the ground in Tunisia. Special
appreciation to Tijani Ben Jemaa and Dhouha Bayassarou for their continued
efforts to promote an open and free internet despite struggles their
countries are experiencing. As Tunisia transitions to democracy, it is my
hope that our colleagues on the ground will help create enabling
environments for open and free expression. Noting that last month was the
third year anniversary of the fruit vendor that burned himself and sparked
the revolution.

*Mali #Manuscripts #Digital # Libraries*
Noting that the UN Security Council recently convened in Mali with respect
to the civil war that has been ensuing. The  Ansar al-Dine tried to
desecrate sacred shrines with pick-axes, and to burn the irreplaceable
manuscripts stored in the libraries of Timbuktu. Whilst the people of Mali,
did all they could to stop them and that, as a result, some of the
manuscripts was preserved.  About 300,000 manuscripts were smuggled out of
Timbuktu by brave Malians during the height of the civil war. I am
wondering whether having digital collection of those manuscripts and
storing them in a server offshore could be a way to preserve your
collections. I know that we have members who have library networks and the
mechanisms to assist and if this is a worthwhile project to also have
digital repository, then it might be something to consider.

*Syria*
My heart continues to grieve as I see the effect that the war is having on
civillians from Syria. I know that we have members in Europe who have been
assisting in communications. Our thoughts are with all the brave men and
women and children and displaced communities that suffer.

*Human Rights Council Annual Meetings*
Whilst Frank La Rue and his Team have been having consultations in specific
locations as preparation, there are still many region not covered in the
Report and there are opportunities for members of the IGC to share what is
happening on the ground etc. I had been in discussion with Joy Liddicoat on
how to better get the IGC involved and making submissions in this Forum.
Whilst in the past one of our members led the work on preparing a
Statement, and we had submitted it, the coordinators and the community can
explore whether they would want to be involved in this forum.

*Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights*
Marianne Franklin and the Team had published basic principles of Internet
Rights. The IGC was involved through some of its members in making
contributions. However, the work to share the output and engage local and
regional communities to participate still needs active involvement of
various members in the IGC to disseminate these across borders. For those
who are interested in joining the Coalition, they can contact Marianne
Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> on how they would like to be involved.

*Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCE) #IP #WIPO *
There are certain developments within on moves to protect  TCEs
through  WIPO etc. To see the developments in WIPO and the Draft Articles
in this area, in English, Spanish, French and Russian, visit:
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=245543
At some point whilst communities may reserve names where generic top level
domains are concerned, there are still certain potential issues that could
surface where it is in the global public interest to develop positions on
or prepare for. However if any study is done, care should be taken to
explore whether geographic names fall under TCEs or not.  The objections in
the Amazon and Patagonia string are indications of what is in the horizon
if we do not develop considerations for protection of TCEs and how to deal
with contentious strings where people have registered marks in certain
countries. A potential hypothetical scenario could be
where  Louis Vuitton were to apply for .maasai and where a Maasai Elder is
in the process of protecting their traditional name. Ron Layton of Light
Years IP argues that the Maasai brand is worth $10million. See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22617001
Intellectual Property and Traditional cultural expressions have been the
subject of global discussions as early as 1967 when there was an amendment
to the *Berne Convention for the Protection of Artistic and Literary Works* for
the protection of unpublished and anonymous works.

*African DNS Forum*
I attended the African DNS Forum in Durbab last year and was impressed with
the participation and interactions that ensued. This showed the joint
commitment of the stakeholders and desire to strengthen access, growth and
internet proliferation in the community.

*Middle East DNS Forum*
Some of you would have physically attended. I attended the Forum on the
first day and participated remotely. Special thanks to Fahd who is on this
list and the work that he, Baher and others are doing in the region. I was
very excited with the new Dot Shabaka and it was really great to hear from
panelists and attendees how the Arab Script is revolutionizing access and
communication and the impact it is already having. It is no doubt very
encouraging to hear the impact on internet proliferation and availability
of services in their native script.  For those of you on twitter, you can
follow the commentary via #MEDNSF


*General Collaboration with Other Civil Society Groups in selecting
Appointees*
In 2013, the IGC hosted a Workshop on MS Section Processes: Accountability
and Transparency with community representatives from ISOC, ICC Basis and
Civil Society. Long term, Brazil meeting aside, there needs to be an
appropriate framework to govern how civil society coordinates and makes
selections. The time frame for recent selections did not allow civil
society stakeholders to coordinate this discussion. I would recommend that
a neutral site for civil society stakeholders or one that everyone agrees
hosts a virtual document which will enable civil society to submit comments
and opinions on. Fantastic initiative by Ian Peter as he has already
started the conversation on the list opening call for comments and feedback
on selection processes. I would like to see that hopefully evolve into some
kind of MoU. Selections of NomComs can be done well in advance so as to be
on standby for selection processes.  Last but not least, I would like to
acknowledge the work in selection processes that Ian Peter and the team did
with respect to 1Net etc.

With every best wish,
Sala

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sala,
>
> I would like to extend my appreciation for your contributions and
> dedication to the coordination and work of the IGC. I congratulate you
> for managing this task with patience and hard work! It was indeed a
> difficult task but you did well! Take care and wish you success in
> your personal endeavors!
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 23:50:36 +0300
> > From: skiden at gmail.com
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
> > Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator [Goodbye
> > and Thanks]
> >
> >
> > Sala,
> >
> > Thank you for everything you did and for all the sacrifices you made. You
> > did you job well (I am sure many people will agree with me). We hope to
> > continue hearing from you as an IGC member. I wish you all the best in
> your
> > future endeavors.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sarah
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
> >
> > It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I
> would be
> > interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I knew
> > about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood. :) I
> > had no clue of what was in store.
> >
> > Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm
> made
> > it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list
> from
> > the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who had
> > been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve. I
> > would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
> > collaboration and patience.
> >
> > At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role
> was to
> > communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their
> > counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of
> them
> > for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to
> Norbert
> > Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind the
> scenes.
> > It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar has also
> been
> > extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier because I had
> > people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his time.
> >
> > There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if
> > people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
> This
> > is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
> > belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned,
> the
> > IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
> > the WSIS.
> >
> > The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both
> internally
> > and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to
> > negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there
> > were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance
> such
> > as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
> >
> > For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join.
> > The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated
> > 1:5
> >
> > When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates,
> > there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were
> usually
> > between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the pro ITU
> > camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus
> multiple
> > root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the discussions
> mature
> > from the polarizations and whilst the differences still exist, they are
> not
> > as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is my hope that we
> can
> > channel these diversities to show case the different perspectives in
> > relation to the issues as we address global public interest concerned
> >
> >  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly
> > those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with
> > confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list
> are
> > diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I
> > see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale.
> The
> > list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC
> > will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various
> entities
> > and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
> > and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we
> also
> > have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we
> > position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
> >
> > To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
> > disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had
> to
> > resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this
> was
> > done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the
> IGC.
> >
> > One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
> > "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
> > easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
> > understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength.
> It
> > is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to
> other
> > stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages
> meaningful
> > and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is
> dependent
> > on some extent on our diplomacy.
> >
> > Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
> > worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you,
> your
> > insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
> > hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
> > and welcoming them.
> >
> > Live and let live!
> >
> > Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
> >
> > With every best wish for 2014,
> >
> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from Gmail Mobile
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/2b0ad782/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dmiloshevic at afilias.info  Wed Feb  5 19:04:24 2014
From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 00:04:24 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3-T3zt3Dwq5HUhwXDKKFkV8phY=Ho-FgZ88TmnMOFYSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALLeeavoea73kpiqGJuQ6xOVig-1KSq9HCiVWw-OdLcnMzjnqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAALUBLSU5WTa27+afWYYGA1F3ZV4u8PNw4_FP--CMPyWYGGhBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPOQ43DTp=0jLWcCZV6p+Gv3hhdwq0D=WfNqFYWqEL_mBPq-BA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHY4F=zdMgz8tU1z1m=pypa+ze1C0sgpWx=yaZTDKn9t=TQWsg@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK3-T3zt3Dwq5HUhwXDKKFkV8phY=Ho-FgZ88TmnMOFYSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EC0627BD-2670-48A7-A53B-49F210BAFE98@afilias.info>

+1

Desiree
--
On 5 Feb 2014, at 19:36, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> Congratulations to both! Excellent indeed!
> Best wishes!
> Marília
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote:
> Congratulations Dee and Mawaki!
> I wish you both all the best!
> 
> Fatima
> 
> 
> 2014-02-05 Borami Kim <squ24n at gmail.com>:
> 
> +1 
> Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki!
> 
> Borami
> 
> 
> 2014-02-06 Bernard Sadaka <sdkaaa at gmail.com>:
> Congrats and good luck for Deirdre and Mawaki! 
> Best, 
> Bernard
> --
> Bernard Sadaka
> Remote Participation Expert
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Fatima Cambronero
> Abogada-Argentina
> 
> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
> Twitter: @facambronero
> Skype: fatima.cambronero
> 
> Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions: https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es  
> 
> Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/  
> 
> Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): http://www.internetsociety.org/ 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/92c7ac6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From babatope at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 00:10:08 2014
From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 06:10:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <EC0627BD-2670-48A7-A53B-49F210BAFE98@afilias.info>
References: <1391592865.44412.BPMail_high_carrier@web140302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CACTo+v_ULnF47-UjnAz9jLa+e4urDX71cSAMceoYce1XnWGQ4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN71e4Rfqprg+Uv_XciQpK0kxsYPRDXukdhPGF3je17ESQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALLeeavoea73kpiqGJuQ6xOVig-1KSq9HCiVWw-OdLcnMzjnqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAALUBLSU5WTa27+afWYYGA1F3ZV4u8PNw4_FP--CMPyWYGGhBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPOQ43DTp=0jLWcCZV6p+Gv3hhdwq0D=WfNqFYWqEL_mBPq-BA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHY4F=zdMgz8tU1z1m=pypa+ze1C0sgpWx=yaZTDKn9t=TQWsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK3-T3zt3Dwq5HUhwXDKKFkV8phY=Ho-FgZ88TmnMOFYSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<EC0627BD-2670-48A7-A53B-49F210BAFE98@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <CAG7Q5Uc8zeGHMw3mKm4AMUqSZSLkgf9QGJ3TG9zRrhVzHJ=O4Q@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations to both Deirdre and Mawaki on the opportunity to chart the
course of events over the next two years for this group.

Best Wishes,


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Desiree Miloshevic <dmiloshevic at afilias.info
> wrote:

> +1
>
> Desiree
> --
>
> On 5 Feb 2014, at 19:36, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Congratulations to both! Excellent indeed!
> Best wishes!
> Marília
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Fatima Cambronero <
> fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Congratulations Dee and Mawaki!
>> I wish you both all the best!
>>
>> Fatima
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-05 Borami Kim <squ24n at gmail.com>:
>>
>> +1
>>> Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki!
>>>
>>> Borami
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-02-06 Bernard Sadaka <sdkaaa at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Congrats and good luck for Deirdre and Mawaki!
>>>> Best,
>>>> Bernard
>>>> --
>>>> Bernard Sadaka
>>>> Remote Participation Expert
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Fatima Cambronero*
>> Abogada-Argentina
>>
>> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
>> Twitter: @facambronero
>> Skype: fatima.cambronero
>>
>> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:*
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>>
>> *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:*
>> http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/
>>
>> *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Babatope Soremi

A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end....

TB


Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent
effort.

*John Ruskin *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/86dbc905/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Thu Feb  6 01:09:51 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:39:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to peace....
Message-ID: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net>

As the year 2013 drew to an end, the BBC reported on the results of the 
WIN/Gallup International poll 
<http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/> 
on the question: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to 
peace in the world today?”

The United States was the champion by a substantial margin, winning 
three times the votes of second-place Pakistan.

read more at
http://inthesetimes.com/article/16227/the_greatest_threat_to_world_peace_is_the_united_states

Some thing that the defenders of US exceptionalism / role in IG should 
reflect on. This dominant role in IG does feed into the global threat to 
world peace that the USG represents..

regards,
Guru


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kabani.asif at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 03:34:45 2014
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:34:45 +0500
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOzvoR3UsdnLaaOA8DY8DGF8MFHD6aVk65E_pfcEWcF4tFGKZA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sala

Many thanks for the results.

Congratulation to the new Co-coordinators with our full support

   - Deirdre Williams
   2016
   - Mawaki Chango
   2015

Thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah who once again participated and supported.

Wishing new coordinators all the best.


Sincerely


-------
*Asif Kabani*
*Director*

*Skype: kabaniasif*

*To connect*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
 [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>

[image: www.slideshare.net.png]

http://www.slideshare.net/kabani

Towards A Sustainable Earth:  Print Only When Necessary

------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY:
This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be
confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please
delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.




On 5 February 2014 09:36, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
> mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
> vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
> nominations:
>
>
>
> 1) Deirdre Williams
>
> 2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> 3) Mawaki Chango
>
> 4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>
>
>
> Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three
> remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
> papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
> things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
> subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
> clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe
> to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
> site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
> get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list
> is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
> subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
> number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received "Out
> of Office" responses from a few.
>
>
>
> Following last year's elections and from feedback from the community, this
> year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select a
> candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
> thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated.
> Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a
> difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
>
>
>  Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
> replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
> term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and
> now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you
> wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>
>
>
> The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>
>
> Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
> Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The
> elections was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>
>
>
> Thank you all.
>
>
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/fee659d3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kabani.asif at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 03:36:18 2014
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:36:18 +0500
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOzvoR3aLy1_=CaP0nOqDQ-um+m8at_A2b=+V-AT5Y-xs=nY-A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sala,

Wishing you all the best.

Sincerely

-------
*Asif Kabani*
*Director*

*Skype: kabaniasif*

*To connect*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
 [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>

[image: www.slideshare.net.png]

http://www.slideshare.net/kabani

Towards A Sustainable Earth:  Print Only When Necessary

------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY:
This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be
confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please
delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.




On 4 February 2014 14:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>
>  It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I would
> be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what I
> knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.
> :) I had no clue of what was in store.
>
> Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm
> made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list
> from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who
> had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve.
> I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
> collaboration and patience.
>
> At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was
> to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their
> counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them
> for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to
> Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind
> the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar
> has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier
> because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his
> time.
>
> There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if
> people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
> This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
> belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
> IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
> the WSIS.
>
> The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both internally
> and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our capacity to
> negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was happening, there
> were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such
> as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>
> For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join.
> The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated
> 1:5
>
> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates,
> there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were
> usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the
> pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus
> multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
> discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still
> exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is
> my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different
> perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest
> concerned
>
>  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly
> those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with
> confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are
> diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I
> see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The
> list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC
> will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities
> and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
> and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also
> have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we
> position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>
> To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
> disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to
> resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was
> done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC.
>
> One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
> "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
> easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
> understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
> is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
> stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
> and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
> on some extent on our diplomacy.
>
> Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
> worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your
> insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
> hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
> and welcoming them.
>
> Live and let live!
>
> Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>
> With every best wish for 2014,
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/175d2e98/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From sana.pryhod at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 05:26:30 2014
From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:26:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <CAOzvoR3aLy1_=CaP0nOqDQ-um+m8at_A2b=+V-AT5Y-xs=nY-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOzvoR3aLy1_=CaP0nOqDQ-um+m8at_A2b=+V-AT5Y-xs=nY-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+C8XCLHnB3_LBjxc1torNhP--j4h1wLDbVq9gMxixBgxm9V-g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Sala,

Thank you very-very much for your incredible engagement, energy and wisdom!

We are trying to re-produce IGC scheme for our Russian-speaking Club of
Experts on Internet governance, and you are our best model of coordinator
(I don't want to under-appreciate other coordinators, but for me it was
extremely important to be in personal contact with Sala).

I am sure that you will play another very important role in IG process,
with even more success!

Best regards from Ukraine!

Oksana


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Kabani <kabani.asif at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Sala,
>
> Wishing you all the best.
>
> Sincerely
>
> -------
> *Asif Kabani*
> *Director*
>
> *Skype: kabaniasif*
>
> *To connect*
> [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image: Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
>  [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
> LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>
>
> [image: www.slideshare.net.png]
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/kabani
>
> Towards A Sustainable Earth:  Print Only When Necessary
>
> ------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY:
> This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be
> confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please
> delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.
>
>
>
>
> On 4 February 2014 14:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>>
>>  It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I
>> would be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what
>> I knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.
>> :) I had no clue of what was in store.
>>
>> Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm
>> made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list
>> from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who
>> had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve.
>> I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
>> collaboration and patience.
>>
>> At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role was
>> to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek their
>> counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them
>> for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to
>> Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind
>> the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar
>> has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier
>> because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his
>> time.
>>
>> There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved if
>> people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
>> This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
>> belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
>> IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
>> the WSIS.
>>
>> The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both
>> internally and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our
>> capacity to negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was
>> happening, there were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of
>> internet governance such as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>>
>> For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would join.
>> The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an estimated
>> 1:5
>>
>> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised debates,
>> there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates were
>> usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was the
>> pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus
>> multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
>> discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still
>> exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is
>> my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different
>> perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest
>> concerned
>>
>>  I am continuously surprised that there are many governments particularly
>> those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can say with
>> confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are
>> diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I
>> see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue, rationale. The
>> list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope that the IGC
>> will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to various entities
>> and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
>> and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF that we also
>> have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand our energy as we
>> position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>>
>> To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree and
>> disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had to
>> resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was
>> done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the IGC.
>>
>> One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to be
>> "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
>> easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
>> understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
>> is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
>> stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
>> and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
>> on some extent on our diplomacy.
>>
>> Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the journey
>> worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of you, your
>> insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.  In a few
>> hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators
>> and welcoming them.
>>
>> Live and let live!
>>
>> Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>>
>> With every best wish for 2014,
>>
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/534c24ca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 06:04:59 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 06:04:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>

Guru and co-co's,



On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

> As the year 2013 drew to an end, the BBC reported on the results of the
> WIN/Gallup International poll <http://www.wingia.com/en/
> services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/> on the
> question: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in
> the world today?”
>
> The United States was the champion by a substantial margin, winning three
> times the votes of second-place Pakistan.
>

While this may be the case, I believe this post to be Off-Topic.


>
> read more at
> http://inthesetimes.com/article/16227/the_greatest_
> threat_to_world_peace_is_the_united_states
>
> Some thing that the defenders of US exceptionalism / role in IG should
> reflect on.



There are exactly zero Members of the Caucus who could be described as
such.  I believe this to be flame-bait.



> This dominant role in IG does feed into the global threat to world peace
> that the USG represents..
>


If we are going to speak truth to power on this list, let's at least speak
the truth!

I would ask the co-co's to discourage members from off-topic posting and
flame baiting.  We have enough discord as it 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/0ab039ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Feb  6 06:28:59 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 16:58:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E7D6212C-66F8-4D10-A4B3-DCC8C6DF644F@hserus.net>

I concur.

--srs (iPad)

> On 06-Feb-2014, at 16:34, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Guru and co-co's,
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> As the year 2013 drew to an end, the BBC reported on the results of the WIN/Gallup International poll <http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/> on the question: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”
>> 
>> The United States was the champion by a substantial margin, winning three times the votes of second-place Pakistan.
> 
> While this may be the case, I believe this post to be Off-Topic.
>  
>> 
>> read more at
>> http://inthesetimes.com/article/16227/the_greatest_threat_to_world_peace_is_the_united_states
>> 
>> Some thing that the defenders of US exceptionalism / role in IG should reflect on.
> 
> 
> There are exactly zero Members of the Caucus who could be described as such.  I believe this to be flame-bait.
> 
>  
>> This dominant role in IG does feed into the global threat to world peace that the USG represents..
> 
> 
> If we are going to speak truth to power on this list, let's at least speak the truth!
> 
> I would ask the co-co's to discourage members from off-topic posting and flame baiting.  We have enough discord as it 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/ed719e4e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Feb  6 10:32:12 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:32:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAOzvoR3UsdnLaaOA8DY8DGF8MFHD6aVk65E_pfcEWcF4tFGKZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOzvoR3UsdnLaaOA8DY8DGF8MFHD6aVk65E_pfcEWcF4tFGKZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52F3AAFC.2000409@apc.org>

Thanks Sala, and  Jeremy and Chaitanya for your work on the process.

Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki!

Thanks to Imran for also being brave and committed enough to tackle the
task.

Looking forward to a good IGC year and one in which I hope we manage to
increase civil society influence in IG.

Anriette

>
>
>
> On 5 February 2014 09:36, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the
>     IGC mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31^st , 2013 both
>     positions were vacant. During the calls for election, we had
>     received the following nominations:
>
>     Â 
>
>     1) Deirdre Williams
>
>     2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>
>     3) Mawaki Chango
>
>     4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>
>     Â 
>
>     Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving
>     only three remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections
>     and preparing ballot papers, we had to verify and check our
>     subscriber database to ensure that things were in order prior to
>     sending the ballot papers. There were some subscribers who had
>     moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to clean these as
>     well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe to the
>     mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
>     site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they
>     did not get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to
>     the mailing list is around 600. The estimated number of account
>     holders who are both subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC
>     accounts is around 400. The number of people who voted was 276.
>     During the elections, we received â??Out of Officeâ?? responses
>     from a few.
>
>     Â 
>
>     Following last yearâ??s elections and from feedback from the
>     community, this year we introduced the abstention category
>     allowing people to not select a candidate. To all those who
>     exercised their right to vote or to abstain, thank you. Special
>     thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated. Special
>     thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a
>     difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
>
>
>     Â Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year
>     term replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve
>     the one year term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to
>     *formally hand over* and now declare the elections closed. To the
>     new coordinators, I wish you wisdom, good energy, strength as you
>     navigate the waters ahead. 
>
>     Â 
>
>     The Election results can be viewed at
>     http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>
>
>     Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and
>     Jeremy Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the
>     elections. The elections was carried out in accordance with the
>     Charter.
>
>     Â 
>
>     Thank you all.
>
>     Â 
>
>     Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/a97c7074/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Feb  6 10:32:38 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:32:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <CA+C8XCLHnB3_LBjxc1torNhP--j4h1wLDbVq9gMxixBgxm9V-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAOzvoR3aLy1_=CaP0nOqDQ-um+m8at_A2b=+V-AT5Y-xs=nY-A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+C8XCLHnB3_LBjxc1torNhP--j4h1wLDbVq9gMxixBgxm9V-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52F3AB16.2000106@apc.org>

Dear Sala

Thank you for your goodbye message (as coordinator). Under extremely
difficult circumstances you have done exceptionally well. I know that at
times this was really difficult and painful.. but you stuck it out! 

I hope that one day you will look back at this as valuable experience...
not much fun, but useful :)

Thank you for your effort and commitment, your patience, and for always
doing your utmost to listen and read carefully, and to be fair when
dealing with conflict.

With much respect.

Anriette




>
>
>
>     On 4 February 2014 14:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>     <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>     <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Dear Colleagues,
>
>         Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>         *_
>         _*
>         It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me
>         whether I would be interested in standing for co-coordinator.
>         In fact, if I knew what I knew about what co-coordinators do,
>         I most probably would not have stood. :) I had no clue of what
>         was in store. 
>
>         Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy
>         Malcolm made it easier for me to transition into my role. He
>         had migrated the list from the cpsr to where it is today. I
>         was also fortunate to have Izumi who had been serving beside
>         Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve. I would
>         like to take this time to especially thank them for their
>         collaboration and patience. 
>
>         At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my
>         new role was to communicate with all past coordinators and
>         over time, I would seek their counsel and their collective
>         wisdom. I would also like to thank all of them for their
>         patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also to
>         Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed
>         immensely behind the scenes. It was a privilege to work
>         alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar has also been extremely
>         helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier because I had
>         people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his time.
>
>         There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be
>         improved if people take the initiative to push forward
>         statements, submissions etc. This is probably the only civil
>         society group whose members and subscribers belong to other
>         civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the IGC
>         is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the
>         creation of the WSIS.
>
>         The last two years, we have encountered several challenges
>         both internally and externally where levels of polarized
>         debates affected our capacity to negotiate or be functional in
>         our advocacy. As this was happening, there were changes
>         happening in the dynamic landscape of internet governance such
>         as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>
>         For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people
>         would join. The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to
>         subscriber is at an estimated 1:5
>
>         When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of
>         polarised debates, there were ITU policy staff subscribing to
>         the IGC. The debates were usually between the pro ICANN camp
>         and the anti ICANN camp or it was the pro ITU camp and the
>         anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root versus multiple
>         root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
>         discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the
>         differences still exist, they are not as threatening and as
>         menacing as they once was. It is my hope that we can channel
>         these diversities to show case the different perspectives in
>         relation to the issues as we address global public interest
>         concerned
>
>         Â I am continuously surprised that there are many governments
>         particularly those in OECD countries who also subscribed to
>         the IGC. I can say with confidence that the diversity of
>         stakeholders that lurk on the IGC list are diverse and is not
>         limited to civil society. Some see this as a threat, I see it
>         as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue,
>         rationale. The list itself is mechanism for change. However,
>         it is my hope that the IGC will be able to make relevant and
>         targeted submissions to various entities and forums in
>         productive ways. There are many pressing things ahead of us
>         and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and the IGF
>         that we also have a futuristic approach to the issues that
>         demand our energy as we position ourselves to meet the coming
>         challenges.
>
>         To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can
>         agree and disagree professionally without personalizing
>         matters. We have also had to resolve numerous matters
>         complaints lodged to the coordinators and this was done
>         discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within
>         the IGC. 
>
>         One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint"
>         and to be "measured" in my response in dealing with situations
>         and this was not an easy thing but being in the IGC has helped
>         me come to a greater understanding of the diversity of voices.
>         Our diversity is our strength. It is my hope that we will use
>         this shared understanding to reach out to other stakeholders
>         and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
>         and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success
>         is dependent on some extent on our diplomacy.
>
>         Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making
>         the journey worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn
>         daily from each of you, your insights, your wisdom and seeing
>         the world through your eyes. Â In a few hours, when we close
>         the Poll, we will be announcing the new coordinators and
>         welcoming them. 
>
>         Live and let live!
>
>         Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>
>         With every best wish for 2014,
>
>         Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>         Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>         Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>         Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/07a3545b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn  Thu Feb  6 11:59:46 2014
From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:59:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <012301cf235c$e80bbb00$b8233100$@benjemaa@planet.tn>

Congratulation to both new coordinators.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone:  + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax:       + 216 70 853 376

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----









De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Salanieta T.
Tamanikaiwaimaro
Envoyé : mercredi 5 février 2014 05:37
À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Objet : [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New Coordinators of
the IGC]



Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
nominations:



1) Deirdre Williams

2) Imran Ahmed Shah

3) Mawaki Chango

4) Mwendwa Kivuva



Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three
remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe
to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list
is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received “Out
of Office” responses from a few.



Following last year’s elections and from feedback from the community, this
year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select a
candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated.
Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a
difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.



 Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to formally hand over and now
declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom,
good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.



The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators



Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
Malcolm for being superstars in facilitating the elections. The elections
was carried out in accordance with the Charter.



Thank you all.



Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro



---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/24186f87/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 13:25:37 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:25:37 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <52F3AAFC.2000409@apc.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOzvoR3UsdnLaaOA8DY8DGF8MFHD6aVk65E_pfcEWcF4tFGKZA@mail.gmail.com> <52F3AAFC.2000409@apc.org>
Message-ID: <41AF41CF-7899-449E-8329-77B8D1F6E493@gmail.com>

Congrats!! Great people!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 6, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Sala, and  Jeremy and Chaitanya for your work on the process.
> 
> Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki! 
> 
> Thanks to Imran for also being brave and committed enough to tackle the task.
> 
> Looking forward to a good IGC year and one in which I hope we manage     to increase civil society influence in IG.
> 
> Anriette
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 5 February 2014 09:36, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following nominations:
>>> Â 
>>> 1) Deirdre Williams
>>> 2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>>> 3) Mawaki Chango
>>> 4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>>> Â 
>>> Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received “Out of Office” responses from a few.
>>> Â 
>>> Following last year’s elections and from feedback from the community, this year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select a candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to                     abstain, thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated. Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a difference in his community in Pakistan and                     also in global forums.
>>> 
>>>  Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to formally hand over and now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead. 
>>> Â 
>>> The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>>> 
>>> Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy Malcolm for being superstars in facilitating the elections. The elections was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>>> Â 
>>> Thank you all.
>>> Â 
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/25ec88cb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From shailam at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  6 13:46:04 2014
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <41AF41CF-7899-449E-8329-77B8D1F6E493@gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOzvoR3UsdnLaaOA8DY8DGF8MFHD6aVk65E_pfcEWcF4tFGKZA@mail.gmail.com> <52F3AAFC.2000409@apc.org> <41AF41CF-7899-449E-8329-77B8D1F6E493@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1391712364.72846.YahooMailNeo@web121402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki! And much appreciation for stepping forward to shoulder this responsibility

 Looking forward to working with both of you and to a great IGC year!

Wish you all the best and full support


 regards

Shaila Rao Mistry
 
 
President
StemInstitute
Transforming Ideals into Action
 
President
JAYCOMMI
Input Technology With A Human Touch
 
www.jaycopanels.com
Tel: 951 738 2000
 
MWOSB         

The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !
..................... the renaissance of composure !




On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:26 AM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
 
Congrats!! Great people!

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:


Thanks Sala, and  Jeremy and Chaitanya for your work on the process.

Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki! 

Thanks to Imran for also being brave and committed enough to tackle
    the task.

Looking forward to a good IGC year and one in which I hope we manage
    to increase civil society influence in IG.

Anriette



>
>
>
>On 5 February 2014 09:36, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following nominations:
>> 
>>1) Deirdre Williams
>>2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>>3) Mawaki Chango
>>4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>> 
>>Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received “Out of Office†responses from a few.
>> 
>>Following last year’s elections and from feedback from the community, this year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select a candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain, thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated. Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
>>
>>
>> Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to formally hand over and now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead. 
>> 
>>The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>>
>>
>>Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy Malcolm for being superstars in facilitating the elections. The elections was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>> 
>>Thank you all.
>> 
>>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/92c5449b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Thu Feb  6 13:47:53 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:47:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org>

Hi,

Yeah, but we are supposed to be allowing the new CoCos to settle in with 
a bit of peace on IGC. I recommend just letting it pass this time.

People say why they have to say.

avri

On 06-Feb-14 06:04, McTim wrote:
> Guru and co-co's,
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net
> <mailto:Guru at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     As the year 2013 drew to an end, the BBC reported on the results of
>     the WIN/Gallup International poll
>     <http://www.wingia.com/en/__services/about_the_end_of___year_survey/global_results/7/__33/
>     <http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/>>
>     on the question: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat
>     to peace in the world today?”
>
>     The United States was the champion by a substantial margin, winning
>     three times the votes of second-place Pakistan.
>
>
> While this may be the case, I believe this post to be Off-Topic.
>
>
>     read more at
>     http://inthesetimes.com/__article/16227/the_greatest___threat_to_world_peace_is_the___united_states
>     <http://inthesetimes.com/article/16227/the_greatest_threat_to_world_peace_is_the_united_states>
>
>     Some thing that the defenders of US exceptionalism / role in IG
>     should reflect on.
>
>
>
> There are exactly zero Members of the Caucus who could be described as
> such.  I believe this to be flame-bait.
>
>     This dominant role in IG does feed into the global threat to world
>     peace that the USG represents..
>
>
>
> If we are going to speak truth to power on this list, let's at least
> speak the truth!
>
> I would ask the co-co's to discourage members from off-topic posting and
> flame baiting.  We have enough discord as it 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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Feb  6 14:29:34 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:29:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <1391712364.72846.YahooMailNeo@web121402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOzvoR3UsdnLaaOA8DY8DGF8MFHD6aVk65E_pfcEWcF4tFGKZA@mail.gmail.com> <52F3AAFC.2000409@apc.org> <41AF41CF-7899-449E-8329-77B8D1F6E493@gmail.com> <1391712364.72846.YahooMailNeo@web121402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <52F3E29E.9000508@wzb.eu>

+1, jeanette

Am 06.02.14 19:46, schrieb shaila mistry:
> Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki! And much appreciation for
> stepping forward to shoulder this responsibility
>
>   Looking forward to working with both of you and to a great IGC year!
>
> Wish you all the best and full support
>
>   regards
>
> Shaila Rao Mistry
> President
> StemInstitute
> Transforming Ideals into Action
> President
> *JAYCO*MMI
> *Input Technology With A Human Touch*
> www.jaycopanels.com <http://www.jaycopanels.com/>
> Tel: 951 738 2000
> MWOSB
> *
> *
> *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !*
> *..................... the renaissance of composure !
> *
>
>
> On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:26 AM, Carolina
> <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> Congrats!! Great people!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Sala, and  Jeremy and Chaitanya for your work on the process.
>
> Congratulations to Deirdre and Mawaki!
>
> Thanks to Imran for also being brave and committed enough to tackle the
> task.
>
> Looking forward to a good IGC year and one in which I hope we manage to
> increase civil society influence in IG.
>
> Anriette
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 February 2014 09:36, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the
>>     IGC mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31^st , 2013 both
>>     positions were vacant. During the calls for election, we had
>>     received the following nominations:
>>     Â
>>     1) Deirdre Williams
>>     2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>>     3) Mawaki Chango
>>     4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>>     Â
>>     Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving
>>     only three remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections
>>     and preparing ballot papers, we had to verify and check our
>>     subscriber database to ensure that things were in order prior to
>>     sending the ballot papers. There were some subscribers who had
>>     moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to clean these as
>>     well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe to the
>>     mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
>>     site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they
>>     did not get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to
>>     the mailing list is around 600. The estimated number of account
>>     holders who are both subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC
>>     accounts is around 400. The number of people who voted was 276.
>>     During the elections, we received “Out of Office†responses
>>     from a few.
>>     Â
>>     Following last year’s elections and from feedback from the
>>     community, this year we introduced the abstention category
>>     allowing people to not select a candidate. To all those who
>>     exercised their right to vote or to abstain, thank you. Special
>>     thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated. Special
>>     thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a
>>     difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
>>
>>     Â Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year
>>     term replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve
>>     the one year term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to
>>     *formally hand over* and now declare the elections closed. To the
>>     new coordinators, I wish you wisdom, good energy, strength as you
>>     navigate the waters ahead.Â
>>     Â
>>     The Election results can be viewed at
>>     http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>>
>>     Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and
>>     Jeremy Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the
>>     elections. The elections was carried out in accordance with the
>>     Charter.
>>     Â
>>     Thank you all.
>>     Â
>>     Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org  <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org  <http://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 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From bavouc at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 16:50:14 2014
From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:50:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAANnlFloumCxMuwwBwSZjX53CgAAAEAAAAIRhiHifmxNMjazaP3PVAxQBAAAAAA==@gmail.com>

Thanks Salanieta,

 

Congrats and good luck to Deirdre and Mawaki, you have all our support and
blessing.

 

Cheers, 

 

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T.
Tamanikaiwaimaro
Sent: mercredi 5 février 2014 05:37
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New Coordinators
of the IGC]

 

Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
nominations:

 

1) Deirdre Williams

2) Imran Ahmed Shah

3) Mawaki Chango

4) Mwendwa Kivuva

 

Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three
remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe
to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list
is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received “Out
of Office” responses from a few.

 

Following last year’s elections and from feedback from the community, this
year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select a
candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated.
Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a
difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.

 

 Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to formally hand over and now
declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you wisdom,
good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead. 

 

The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators

 

Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
Malcolm for being superstars in facilitating the elections. The elections
was carried out in accordance with the Charter.

 

Thank you all.

 

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140206/56d8a4ef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Feb  6 17:27:17 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:27:17 +1200
Subject: [governance] Final Message to the IGC as co-coordinator
 [Goodbye and Thanks]
In-Reply-To: <52F3AB16.2000106@apc.org>
References: <CAJwbTiA+OqzdO7w48p+hhY_8EkS1cjNck6MC6p2a0EKP3dXsmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOzvoR3aLy1_=CaP0nOqDQ-um+m8at_A2b=+V-AT5Y-xs=nY-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+C8XCLHnB3_LBjxc1torNhP--j4h1wLDbVq9gMxixBgxm9V-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F3AB16.2000106@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDD2r71MzQz0hfcX1HUuuto5zQwazhFMsdM8anOjSJx2g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Oksana, Anriette, Asif and others,

Many thanks for your kindness.

Best Wishes for 2014,
Sala


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

>  Dear Sala
>
> Thank you for your goodbye message (as coordinator). Under extremely
> difficult circumstances you have done exceptionally well. I know that at
> times this was really difficult and painful.. but you stuck it out!Â
>
> I hope that one day you will look back at this as valuable experience...
> not much fun, but useful :)
>
> Thank you for your effort and commitment, your patience, and for always
> doing your utmost to listen and read carefully, and to be fair when dealing
> with conflict.
>
> With much respect.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>  On 4 February 2014 14:19, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Colleagues,
>>>
>>>  Warm Greetings from Suva, Fiji,
>>>
>>>  It seems like only yesterday when several people asked me whether I
>>> would be interested in standing for co-coordinator. In fact, if I knew what
>>> I knew about what co-coordinators do, I most probably would not have stood.
>>> :) I had no clue of what was in store.Â
>>>
>>>  Suffice to say, my role was easy because my predecessor Jeremy Malcolm
>>> made it easier for me to transition into my role. He had migrated the list
>>> from the cpsr to where it is today. I was also fortunate to have Izumi who
>>> had been serving beside Jeremy for around a year before I came into serve.
>>> I would like to take this time to especially thank them for their
>>> collaboration and patience.Â
>>>
>>>  At the outset, one of the first things I had set to do in my new role
>>> was to communicate with all past coordinators and over time, I would seek
>>> their counsel and their collective wisdom. I would also like to thank all
>>> of them for their patience, wisdom and dedication. Special thank you also
>>> to Norbert Bollow my fellow co-coordinator who contributed immensely behind
>>> the scenes. It was a privilege to work alongside you. Chaitanya Dhareshwar
>>> has also been extremely helpful behind the scenes and my load was easier
>>> because I had people like Chaitanya who was generous in volunteering his
>>> time.
>>>
>>>  There are few aspects of civil society engagement that can be improved
>>> if people take the initiative to push forward statements, submissions etc.
>>> This is probably the only civil society group whose members and subscribers
>>> belong to other civil society organisations. As Nnenna once mentioned, the
>>> IGC is the oldest civil society organisation formed since the creation of
>>> the WSIS.
>>>
>>>  The last two years, we have encountered several challenges both
>>> internally and externally where levels of polarized debates affected our
>>> capacity to negotiate or be functional in our advocacy. As this was
>>> happening, there were changes happening in the dynamic landscape of
>>> internet governance such as the uncertainty of Internet Governance etc.
>>>
>>>  For each person that unsubscribed or left the IGC, six people would
>>> join. The average ratio of the unsubscriber is to subscriber is at an
>>> estimated 1:5
>>>
>>> When we were debating the WCIT and having all kinds of polarised
>>> debates, there were ITU policy staff subscribing to the IGC. The debates
>>> were usually between the pro ICANN camp and the anti ICANN camp or it was
>>> the pro ITU camp and the anti ITU camp and once pro single unified root
>>> versus multiple root camp or the pro US and anti US camp. I am seeing the
>>> discussions mature from the polarizations and whilst the differences still
>>> exist, they are not as threatening and as menacing as they once was. It is
>>> my hope that we can channel these diversities to show case the different
>>> perspectives in relation to the issues as we address global public interest
>>> concerned
>>>
>>>  Â I am continuously surprised that there are many governments
>>> particularly those in OECD countries who also subscribed to the IGC. I can
>>> say with confidence that the diversity of stakeholders that lurk on the IGC
>>> list are diverse and is not limited to civil society. Some see this as a
>>> threat, I see it as an opportunity to allow them to hear our dialogue,
>>> rationale. The list itself is mechanism for change. However, it is my hope
>>> that the IGC will be able to make relevant and targeted submissions to
>>> various entities and forums in productive ways. There are many pressing
>>> things ahead of us and whilst we are preparing for the Brazil meeting and
>>> the IGF that we also have a futuristic approach to the issues that demand
>>> our energy as we position ourselves to meet the coming challenges.
>>>
>>>  To do this it will require some level of decorum where we can agree
>>> and disagree professionally without personalizing matters. We have also had
>>> to resolve numerous matters complaints lodged to the coordinators and this
>>> was done discreetly. I am pleased that things have calmed down within the
>>> IGC.Â
>>>
>>>  One of the greatest thing I have had to learn was "restraint" and to
>>> be "measured" in my response in dealing with situations and this was not an
>>> easy thing but being in the IGC has helped me come to a greater
>>> understanding of the diversity of voices. Our diversity is our strength. It
>>> is my hope that we will use this shared understanding to reach out to other
>>> stakeholders and interface with them in a manner that encourages meaningful
>>> and productive interaction instead of alienation. Our success is dependent
>>> on some extent on our diplomacy.
>>>
>>>  Last but not least, a big thank you to all of you for making the
>>> journey worthwhile and memorable. I continue to learn daily from each of
>>> you, your insights, your wisdom and seeing the world through your eyes.
>>> Â In a few hours, when we close the Poll, we will be announcing the new
>>> coordinators and welcoming them.Â
>>>
>>>  Live and let live!
>>>
>>>  Many thanks everyone (Vinaka Vakalevu).
>>>
>>>  With every best wish for 2014,
>>>
>>>  Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> Â  Â  Â 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/275569f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Thu Feb  6 21:45:05 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:15:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com> <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org>
Message-ID: <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>

On 02/07/2014 12:17 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yeah, but we are supposed to be allowing the new CoCos to settle in 
> with a bit of peace on IGC. I recommend just letting it pass this time.
>

Avri,

Do you agree with McTim that my posting was off-topic?

> People say why they have to say.
>

The dominant role of USG in Internet and its extraordinary surveillance 
(as Snowden revelations indicate) is an important reason why USG acts 
with such impunity. Think of it as a card game where one player knows 
the cards of all other players. USG uses its illegally collected 
information to further its political and economic goals and commit 
crimes against humanity of an unprecedented order. For eg the illegal 
drone strikes that kill civilians can only work with such tapped 
intelligence

To reduce USG criminal activities/potential, we need to seriously 
address the current IGC structures/processes in which it has a dominant 
role. And IGC as an important CS space has to take this up seriously. 
And stopping even the mention/raising of such important matters is 
simply an attempt at intimidation, and this behavior is a pattern. While 
it will not affect me, such intimidation can have a chilling affect on 
participation of others and I think the co-cos should warn McTim to 
desist from such behaviour.

Guru



> avri
>
> On 06-Feb-14 06:04, McTim wrote:
>> Guru and co-co's,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:Guru at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     As the year 2013 drew to an end, the BBC reported on the results of
>>     the WIN/Gallup International poll
>> <http://www.wingia.com/en/__services/about_the_end_of___year_survey/global_results/7/__33/
>> <http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/>>
>>     on the question: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat
>>     to peace in the world today?”
>>
>>     The United States was the champion by a substantial margin, winning
>>     three times the votes of second-place Pakistan.
>>
>>
>> While this may be the case, I believe this post to be Off-Topic.
>>
>>
>>     read more at
>> http://inthesetimes.com/__article/16227/the_greatest___threat_to_world_peace_is_the___united_states
>> <http://inthesetimes.com/article/16227/the_greatest_threat_to_world_peace_is_the_united_states>
>>
>>     Some thing that the defenders of US exceptionalism / role in IG
>>     should reflect on.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are exactly zero Members of the Caucus who could be described as
>> such.  I believe this to be flame-bait.
>>
>>     This dominant role in IG does feed into the global threat to world
>>     peace that the USG represents..
>>
>>
>>
>> If we are going to speak truth to power on this list, let's at least
>> speak the truth!
>>
>> I would ask the co-co's to discourage members from off-topic posting and
>> flame baiting.  We have enough discord as it 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  Thu Feb  6 22:04:17 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 22:04:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com> <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org> <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <52F44D31.4000204@acm.org>



On 06-Feb-14 21:45, Guru गुरु wrote:
> Avri,
>
> Do you agree with McTim that my posting was off-topic?

I don't think IGC has a definition of off-topic.

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 anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Feb  7 02:20:31 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:50:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
 Coordinators of the IGC]
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAANnlFloumCxMuwwBwSZjX53CgAAAEAAAAIRhiHifmxNMjazaP3PVAxQBAAAAAA==@gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC7+GnRXjcN29mHYHHaq1k4Z0ifE8xqwcP2mFwb18mUFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAANnlFloumCxMuwwBwSZjX53CgAAAEAAAAIRhiHifmxNMjazaP3PVAxQBAAAAAA==@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBSPcMfGmo_wh7UMQdd5Pna29X_pPg2w90m=ut275bkcQ@mail.gmail.com>

Great news! Congrats to Deirdre and Mawaki, and many thanks to all those
who worked to make this election happen.

All the best,
Anja


On 7 February 2014 03:20, Martial Bavou <bavouc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Salanieta,
>
>
>
> Congrats and good luck to Deirdre and Mawaki, you have all our support and
> blessing.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Salanieta T.
> Tamanikaiwaimaro
> *Sent:* mercredi 5 février 2014 05:37
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* [governance] IGC ELECTION RESULTS [Welcoming the New
> Coordinators of the IGC]
>
>
>
> Calls for expressions of interest or nominations were made on the IGC
> mailing list in June, 2013.By December 31st, 2013 both positions were
> vacant. During the calls for election, we had received the following
> nominations:
>
>
>
> 1) Deirdre Williams
>
> 2) Imran Ahmed Shah
>
> 3) Mawaki Chango
>
> 4) Mwendwa Kivuva
>
>
>
> Prior to holding the elections, Mwendwa Kivuva withdrew leaving only three
> remaining candidates. Prior to hosting the elections and preparing ballot
> papers, we had to verify and check our subscriber database to ensure that
> things were in order prior to sending the ballot papers. There were some
> subscribers who had moved and so had inactive email accounts. We had to
> clean these as well. We also noted that there were some who were subscribe
> to the mailing list but did not have IGC accounts by registering on the
> site. We received feedback from some of the subscribers that they did not
> get ballot papers. The estimated number of subscribers to the mailing list
> is around 600. The estimated number of account holders who are both
> subscribed to the mailing list and have IGC accounts is around 400. The
> number of people who voted was 276. During the elections, we received "Out
> of Office" responses from a few.
>
>
>
> Following last year's elections and from feedback from the community, this
> year we introduced the abstention category allowing people to not select a
> candidate. To all those who exercised their right to vote or to abstain,
> thank you. Special thanks to ALL the amazing candidates who participated.
> Special thanks to Imran Ahmed Shah for his continuous commitment to make a
> difference in his community in Pakistan and also in global forums.
>
>
>
>  Congratulations to Deirdre Williams who will serve the two year term
> replacing me. Congratulations to Mawaki Chango who will serve the one year
> term replacing Norbert Bollow. I am pleased to *formally hand over* and
> now declare the elections closed. To the new coordinators, I wish you
> wisdom, good energy, strength as you navigate the waters ahead.
>
>
>
> The Election results can be viewed at http://igcaucus.org/co-coordinators
>
>
>
> Last but not least I would like to thank Chaitanya Dhareshwar and Jeremy
> Malcolm for being *superstars* in facilitating the elections. The
> elections was carried out in accordance with the Charter.
>
>
>
> Thank you all.
>
>
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/7af4f621/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 06:54:09 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 06:54:09 -0500
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org> <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiLJqm8ttPL1AwTsp6bQyPgX5YW3Rc6tdEdY8=6HWUnrQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

> On 02/07/2014 12:17 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yeah, but we are supposed to be allowing the new CoCos to settle in with
>> a bit of peace on IGC. I recommend just letting it pass this time.
>>
>>
> Avri,
>
> Do you agree with McTim that my posting was off-topic?
>
>
>  People say why they have to say.
>>
>>
> The dominant role of USG in Internet and its extraordinary surveillance
> (as Snowden revelations indicate) is an important reason why USG acts with
> such impunity.


Don't conflate the two.




> Think of it as a card game where one player knows the cards of all other
> players. USG uses its illegally collected information to further its
> political and economic goals and commit crimes against humanity of an
> unprecedented order. For eg the illegal drone strikes that kill civilians
> can only work with such tapped intelligence
>
> To reduce USG criminal activities/potential, we need to seriously address
> the current IGC structures/processes in which it has a dominant role.



Are you suggesting that the US has a dominant role in this Caucus, and that
removing this dominance will reduce drone strikes and mass surveillance?




> And IGC as an important CS space has to take this up seriously. And
> stopping even the mention/raising of such important matters is simply an
> attempt at intimidation, and this behavior is a pattern. While it will not
> affect me, such intimidation can have a chilling affect on participation of
> others and I think the co-cos should warn McTim to desist from such
> behaviour.



If a survey of World Peace  is on-topic, then I'd like to talk about the
high price of fish in my local market as an IG issue.  If you suggest to me
that cost of fish is off-topic, is that censorship?


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/17949cd7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Feb  7 07:00:03 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:30:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiLJqm8ttPL1AwTsp6bQyPgX5YW3Rc6tdEdY8=6HWUnrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com> <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org> <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxiLJqm8ttPL1AwTsp6bQyPgX5YW3Rc6tdEdY8=6HWUnrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EB876698-2BF6-4F4B-9B88-F44353D4C78E@hserus.net>

> On 07-Feb-2014, at 17:24, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> If a survey of World Peace  is on-topic, then I'd like to talk about the high price of fish in my local market as an IG issue.  If you suggest to me that cost of fish is off-topic, is that censorship?

May I suggest a survey of just how disruptive and poisonous an influence to the caucus such a politically driven and divisive agenda as the one you objected to poses?

--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 Feb  7 08:33:28 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:33:28 -0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
 - IG
Message-ID: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>

As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
overwhelming observation
 

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in
the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and
that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are
making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite
likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure
the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into
whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
ensure that these forces do not prevail
 that these processes are not
captured and subverted
 i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming
resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge
from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in
some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result
to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests
and what the significance of this observation has to be for these
discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

Dear all,

I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
below:

 

On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

/SNIP/ 

If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following function,
maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional model(s) will
become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can think
harder about viable routes for an international body or forum to make an
impact on them, which might be different for different goals. Purely through
cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on
globally applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU)
or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind of
WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and sanctions?
Through control of key internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some
combination of the above? Or none of the above?!

 

One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a decentralised
model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows such a constant
and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal outlined here:
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all issues,
and some issues might even require a variety of organisations/institutions
to lead a process together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such
an approach also has the advantage of making it possible to already move on
issues for which there is wide agreement on the process, without needing to
wait for agreement on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care
of all issues for all time to come. 

Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on provides
as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that have a
stake in that particular issue. 

Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that I
think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
request other UN bodies to take up a matter.

Best,
Anja



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance
To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Hi Andrew and all,

 

After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to
hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.

 

First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also
useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. 

 

- It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.

 

- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the
more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is
correct...

 

- I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
recommendations and send them to other organizations: 

a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 

b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion
on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how
does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
international regimes? 

c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 

d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the
IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
the drama before Bali). 

e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
enough voluntary funding to the IGF?

f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and
the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up
to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully

 

- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight)
ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your
argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
without power and resources. 

 

- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility
to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that
it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues
could be more carefully explained.

 

That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
can continue the discussions.

Thanks again for the good start

Marília

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Anne

 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
<mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:

 

I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going forward
to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the specifics of that
substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the window
of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something substantive
from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now. 

 

I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
represents.

 

 

—Mike

 

 

-- 

Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project

 <mailto:mgodwin at internews.org> mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446

Skype mnemonic1026

Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA

 

INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.

 <http://www.internews.org/> www.internews.org |
<http://www.twitter.com/internews> @internews |
<http://www.facebook.com/internews> facebook.com/internews

 

From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust the
list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point for
progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
discussions and negotiations can begin. ...

 

The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
best bits meeting




-------- Original message --------
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> 
Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance 



On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

Three examples might be: 

1.       Net neutrality

2.       Protection for personal privacy

3.       Affordable access

We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that we
call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
objectives both at the  international level and in national policies. 

 

I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
this in a two day conference


I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.

I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
principles and mechanisms.

-- 

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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599> 

WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . 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.

 

Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw
0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>  to report this email as spam.

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





 

-- 

Anne Jellema

Chief Executive Officer

Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 

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 |
<http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter:
@webfoundation


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/4bc0bc97/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb  7 09:05:53 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:05:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re:
 substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140207150553.775173a6@quill>

I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take
these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict
with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.

How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
discussion on that basis?

If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
request to please reply.)

Greetings,
Norbert



Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil
> and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
> overwhelming observation… 
> 
>  
> 
> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
> Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in
> a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only
> interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  
> 
>  
> 
> Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure
> and that proposal for the “management of decision making through
> MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say,
> naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant,
> well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking
> to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
> corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
> whatever process.
> 
>  
> 
> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
> unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be
> taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these
> processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive
> strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating
> as part of whatever package we are promoting.
> 
>  
> 
> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
> whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly
> overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do
> whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow
> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the
> significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and
> their outputs.
> 
>  
> 
> This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
> sense.
> 
>  
> 
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> To: Anne Jellema
> Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
> jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
> comments below:
> 
>  
> 
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> /SNIP/ 
> 
> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require
> some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form
> following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best
> institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once
> we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an
> international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be
> different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus
> and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
> applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or
> legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind
> of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and
> sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a
> la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!
> 
>  
> 
> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it
> allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see
> our proposal outlined here:
> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
> -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
> unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
> issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
> organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue
> is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage
> of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is
> wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement
> on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
> issues for all time to come. 
> 
> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
> expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each
> case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations
> among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process
> is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the
> different groups that have a stake in that particular issue. 
> 
> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and
> that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting
> that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD
> WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any
> concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate
> process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD
> WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
> process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to
> that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case
> even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN
> bodies to take up a matter.
> 
> Best,
> Anja
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> 
> 
> Hi Andrew and all,
> 
>  
> 
> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully
> written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts
> informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
> 
>  
> 
> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to
> give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of
> inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed
> them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have
> are the following. 
> 
>  
> 
> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances
> of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things
> as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from
> that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder
> participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not
> what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some
> analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors
> were all univocally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think
> many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a
> long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands
> for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
> 
>  
> 
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
> identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume
> the first option is correct...
> 
>  
> 
> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that
> you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
> recommendations and send them to other organizations: 
> 
> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 
> 
> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If
> there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to,
> for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a
> context that the MS opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO?
> What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance
> of the internet to traditional international regimes? 
> 
> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 
> 
> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
> improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if
> there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the
> forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali). 
> 
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
> chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a
> very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of
> methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the
> IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive
> additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and
> the business and the technical community were alligned against UN
> public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our
> model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
> funding to the IGF?
> 
> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
> sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the
> IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD
> could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
> 
>  
> 
> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
> Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear
> processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and
> harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly
> emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS
> processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and
> resources. 
> 
>  
> 
> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe
> the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the
> diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.
> 
>  
> 
> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
> hoping we can continue the discussions.
> 
> Thanks again for the good start
> 
> Marília
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Anne
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
> <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the
> specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is
> excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if
> want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit
> to a substantive agenda now. 
> 
>  
> 
> I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be,
> or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it
> will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more
> on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from
> the opportunity Brazil represents.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> —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 genekimmelman at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 09:18:40 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:18:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <20140207150553.775173a6@quill>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
	<20140207150553.775173a6@quill>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>

Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to
promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in
engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that
this lens on IG process or principles has been lacking from the process so
far.  So maybe you can explain -- is it that you have a different theory of
how CS can/should seek to become more powerful?  A different approach to
advocacy than what most activists/advocates have been practicing?  I'm sure
many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how to
obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all the
time....


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
> the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take
> these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict
> with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
>
> How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
> discussion on that basis?
>
> If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
> reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
> going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
> area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
> request to please reply.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil
> > and following the discussion on this list and others I'm struck by one
> > overwhelming observation...
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
> > Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in
> > a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only
> > interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance structure
> > and that proposal for the "management of decision making through
> > MSism" all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say,
> > naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant,
> > well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking
> > to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
> > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
> > whatever process.
> >
> >
> >
> > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
> > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be
> > taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail... that these
> > processes are not captured and subverted... i.e. what are the defensive
> > strategies and institutional mechanisms that "we" (CS) are advocating
> > as part of whatever package we are promoting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
> > whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly
> > overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do
> > whatever it takes to twist the result to support one's own narrow
> > (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the
> > significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and
> > their outputs.
> >
> >
> >
> > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
> > sense.
> >
> >
> >
> > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
> >
> >
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
> > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> > To: Anne Jellema
> > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
> > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> > governance
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
> > comments below:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > /SNIP/
> >
> > If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require
> > some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form
> > following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best
> > institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once
> > we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an
> > international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be
> > different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus
> > and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
> > applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or
> > legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind
> > of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and
> > sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a
> > la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> > decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it
> > allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see
> > our proposal outlined here:
> >
> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
> > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
> > unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
> > issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
> > organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue
> > is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage
> > of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is
> > wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement
> > on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
> > issues for all time to come.
> >
> > Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
> > expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each
> > case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations
> > among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process
> > is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the
> > different groups that have a stake in that particular issue.
> >
> > Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and
> > that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting
> > that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD
> > WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any
> > concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate
> > process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD
> > WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
> > process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to
> > that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case
> > even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN
> > bodies to take up a matter.
> >
> > Best,
> > Anja
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> > governance
> > To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> >
> >
> > Hi Andrew and all,
> >
> >
> >
> > After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully
> > written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts
> > informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
> >
> >
> >
> > First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to
> > give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of
> > inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed
> > them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have
> > are the following.
> >
> >
> >
> > - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances
> > of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things
> > as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from
> > that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder
> > participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not
> > what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some
> > analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors
> > were all univocally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think
> > many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a
> > long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands
> > for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
> >
> >
> >
> > - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
> > identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume
> > the first option is correct...
> >
> >
> >
> > - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that
> > you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
> > recommendations and send them to other organizations:
> >
> > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
> >
> > b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If
> > there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to,
> > for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a
> > context that the MS opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO?
> > What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance
> > of the internet to traditional international regimes?
> >
> > c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
> > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
> >
> > d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
> > improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if
> > there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the
> > forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
> >
> > e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
> > chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a
> > very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of
> > methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the
> > IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive
> > additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and
> > the business and the technical community were alligned against UN
> > public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our
> > model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
> > funding to the IGF?
> >
> > f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
> > sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the
> > IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD
> > could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
> >
> >
> >
> > - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
> > Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear
> > processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and
> > harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly
> > emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS
> > processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and
> > resources.
> >
> >
> >
> > - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> > possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe
> > the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the
> > diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.
> >
> >
> >
> > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
> > hoping we can continue the discussions.
> >
> > Thanks again for the good start
> >
> > Marília
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Anne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
> > <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> > targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> > forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don't care what what the
> > specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is
> > excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if
> > want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit
> > to a substantive agenda now.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be,
> > or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it
> > will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more
> > on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from
> > the opportunity Brazil represents.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/712f4910/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Feb  7 09:24:31 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:24:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was
 Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <20140207150553.775173a6@quill>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill>
Message-ID: <3946B1DF-CB31-443F-AB58-8FB6BC12B467@mail.utoronto.ca>

I agree.  Please include me in the discussion.  A word of warning though, I am tired of US bashing in the wake of Snowden.
Stephanie Perrin

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 7, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
> the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take
> these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict
> with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
> 
> How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
> discussion on that basis?
> 
> If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
> reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
> going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
> area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
> request to please reply.)
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil
>> and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
>> overwhelming observation… 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
>> Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in
>> a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only
>> interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure
>> and that proposal for the “management of decision making through
>> MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say,
>> naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant,
>> well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking
>> to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
>> corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
>> whatever process.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
>> unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be
>> taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these
>> processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive
>> strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating
>> as part of whatever package we are promoting.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
>> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
>> whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly
>> overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do
>> whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow
>> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the
>> significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and
>> their outputs.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
>> sense.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
>> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
>> To: Anne Jellema
>> Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
>> jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>> governance
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
>> comments below:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>> /SNIP/ 
>> 
>> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require
>> some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form
>> following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best
>> institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once
>> we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an
>> international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be
>> different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus
>> and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
>> applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or
>> legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind
>> of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and
>> sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a
>> la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
>> decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it
>> allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see
>> our proposal outlined here:
>> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
>> -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
>> unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
>> issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
>> organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue
>> is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage
>> of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is
>> wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement
>> on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
>> issues for all time to come. 
>> 
>> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
>> expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each
>> case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations
>> among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process
>> is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the
>> different groups that have a stake in that particular issue. 
>> 
>> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and
>> that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting
>> that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD
>> WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any
>> concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate
>> process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD
>> WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
>> process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to
>> that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case
>> even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN
>> bodies to take up a matter.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Anja
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>> governance
>> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
>> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Andrew and all,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully
>> written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts
>> informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to
>> give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of
>> inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed
>> them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have
>> are the following. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances
>> of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things
>> as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from
>> that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder
>> participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not
>> what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some
>> analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors
>> were all univocally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think
>> many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a
>> long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands
>> for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
>> identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume
>> the first option is correct...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that
>> you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
>> recommendations and send them to other organizations: 
>> 
>> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 
>> 
>> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If
>> there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to,
>> for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a
>> context that the MS opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO?
>> What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance
>> of the internet to traditional international regimes? 
>> 
>> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
>> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 
>> 
>> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
>> improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if
>> there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the
>> forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali). 
>> 
>> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
>> chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a
>> very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of
>> methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the
>> IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive
>> additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and
>> the business and the technical community were alligned against UN
>> public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our
>> model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
>> funding to the IGF?
>> 
>> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
>> sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the
>> IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD
>> could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
>> Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear
>> processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and
>> harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly
>> emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS
>> processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and
>> resources. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
>> possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe
>> the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the
>> diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
>> hoping we can continue the discussions.
>> 
>> Thanks again for the good start
>> 
>> Marília
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Anne
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
>> <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
>> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
>> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the
>> specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is
>> excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if
>> want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit
>> to a substantive agenda now. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be,
>> or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it
>> will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more
>> on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from
>> the opportunity Brazil represents.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> —Mike
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  7 09:55:56 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:25:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was
 Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
Message-ID: <E1WBmqS-0001Oq-Vx@samwise.hserus.net>

There is a difference between public policy and political maneuvering power plays. Some of the snowden related US bashing on igc earlier today, among others, are examples of the latter. 

The first is a productive use of civil society's time and effort. The second only benefits those that actually engage in it, at the cost of the rest of civil society and every other actual stakeholder with skin in the game. 

People and organizations with no other stake in the game except regular battles for political control are strongly encouraged to run for actual political office where their maneuvering might be better appreciated (or at least, seen for what it is) 

--srs (htc one x)

----- Reply message -----
From: "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch>
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Cc: "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>, <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: [governance] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
Date: Fri, Feb 7, 2014 7:35 PM

I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take
these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict
with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.

How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
discussion on that basis?

If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
request to please reply.)

Greetings,
Norbert



Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil
> and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
> overwhelming observation… 
> 
>  
> 
> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
> Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in
> a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only
> interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  
> 
>  
> 
> Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure
> and that proposal for the “management of decision making through
> MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say,
> naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant,
> well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking
> to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
> corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
> whatever process.
> 
>  
> 
> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
> unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be
> taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these
> processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive
> strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating
> as part of whatever package we are promoting.
> 
>  
> 
> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
> whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly
> overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do
> whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow
> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the
> significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and
> their outputs.
> 
>  
> 
> This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
> sense.
> 
>  
> 
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> To: Anne Jellema
> Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
> jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
> comments below:
> 
>  
> 
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> /SNIP/ 
> 
> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require
> some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form
> following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best
> institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once
> we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an
> international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be
> different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus
> and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
> applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or
> legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind
> of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and
> sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a
> la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!
> 
>  
> 
> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it
> allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see
> our proposal outlined here:
> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
> -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
> unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
> issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
> organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue
> is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage
> of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is
> wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement
> on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
> issues for all time to come. 
> 
> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
> expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each
> case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations
> among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process
> is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the
> different groups that have a stake in that particular issue. 
> 
> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and
> that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting
> that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD
> WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any
> concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate
> process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD
> WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
> process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to
> that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case
> even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN
> bodies to take up a matter.
> 
> Best,
> Anja
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> 
> 
> Hi Andrew and all,
> 
>  
> 
> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully
> written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts
> informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
> 
>  
> 
> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to
> give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of
> inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed
> them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have
> are the following. 
> 
>  
> 
> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances
> of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things
> as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from
> that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder
> participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not
> what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some
> analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors
> were all univocally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think
> many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a
> long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands
> for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
> 
>  
> 
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
> identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume
> the first option is correct...
> 
>  
> 
> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that
> you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
> recommendations and send them to other organizations: 
> 
> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 
> 
> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If
> there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to,
> for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a
> context that the MS opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO?
> What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance
> of the internet to traditional international regimes? 
> 
> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 
> 
> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
> improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if
> there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the
> forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali). 
> 
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
> chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a
> very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of
> methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the
> IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive
> additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and
> the business and the technical community were alligned against UN
> public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our
> model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
> funding to the IGF?
> 
> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
> sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the
> IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD
> could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
> 
>  
> 
> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
> Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear
> processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and
> harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly
> emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS
> processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and
> resources. 
> 
>  
> 
> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe
> the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the
> diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.
> 
>  
> 
> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
> hoping we can continue the discussions.
> 
> Thanks again for the good start
> 
> Marília
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Anne
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
> <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the
> specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is
> excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if
> want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit
> to a substantive agenda now. 
> 
>  
> 
> I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be,
> or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it
> will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more
> on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from
> the opportunity Brazil represents.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> —Mike
> 
>  
> 
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/43cf3eb1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 10:09:20 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:09:20 -0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>	<20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <015d01cf2416$9d04ed60$d70ec820$@gmail.com>

Gene,

 

Inline

 

From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:19 PM
To: Norbert Bollow
Cc: IGC; Michael Gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re:
substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

 

Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to
promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in
engaging with you on this. 

[MG>] good

 

But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that this lens on IG process or
principles has been lacking from the process so far.  So maybe you can
explain -- is it that you have a different theory of how CS can/should seek
to become more powerful?

[MG>] my point was not addressed to the relative status of CS, a subject on
which I have, as you know quite divergent perspectives
 rather my point was
concerning the recommendations that CS is making/advocating for
 Given my
observations (and dare I say experience) with MSism in action, the ease (and
cheapness) by means of which a MS process could be captured or subverted
seems to me to be obvious and something that any responsible advocate for
MSism would need to be very concerned about and ensure that the strongest of
defensive measures were in place before any reliance was placed on these
processes.  And of course, similarly with other positions such as
“decentralization” where again the possibilities of capture through the
application of concentrated efforts and relatively minor financial resources
would seem to me to be quite evident.

 

 A different approach to advocacy than what most activists/advocates have
been practicing? 

[MG>] see above
 but not including concerns for defending outcomes from
capture and subversion would seem to me to be naïve and foolhardy at the
minimum

 

 I'm sure many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about
how to obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all
the time....

[MG>] I must say I have seen little evidence of that perhaps you could point
me in that direction.

 

As a case in point, the ease with which a framework (1net) with no
transparent or accountable provenance was able to inveigle itself into a
position of centrality in various significant MS discussions/deliberations;
the manner in which a “Summary” of the discussions was prepared again
without any transparent or accountable provenance; and further the shift of
the discussion from an open e-list to a registration only set of “forums”,
the structuring of which again was done without any transparent or
accountable provenance; and all with no pushback of any substance from
“Civil Society” (including dare I say, exploration of matters such as  who
actually wrote the “summary” and who paid for this and the forum website);
hardly gives confidence in the effectiveness or willingness to intervene of
those who “ponder (this) all the time” including of course, the “Civil
Society” notables that 1Net arranged to have selected for inclusion in its
Steering Committee.

 

But maybe I missed something.

 

M

 

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take
these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict
with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.

How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
discussion on that basis?

If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
request to please reply.)

Greetings,
Norbert



Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil
> and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
> overwhelming observation

>
>
>
> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
> Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in
> a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only
> interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.
>
>
>
> Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure
> and that proposal for the “management of decision making through
> MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say,
> naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant,
> well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking
> to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
> corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
> whatever process.
>
>
>
> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
> unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be
> taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail
 that these
> processes are not captured and subverted
 i.e. what are the defensive
> strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating
> as part of whatever package we are promoting.
>
>
>
> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
> whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly
> overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do
> whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow
> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the
> significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and
> their outputs.
>
>
>
> This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
> sense.
>
>
>
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> To: Anne Jellema
> Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
> jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
> comments below:
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> /SNIP/
>
> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require
> some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form
> following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best
> institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once
> we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an
> international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be
> different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus
> and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
> applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or
> legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind
> of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and
> sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a
> la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!
>
>
>
> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it
> allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see
> our proposal outlined here:
>
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
> -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
> unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
> issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
> organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue
> is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage
> of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is
> wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement
> on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
> issues for all time to come.
>
> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
> expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each
> case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations
> among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process
> is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the
> different groups that have a stake in that particular issue.
>
> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and
> that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting
> that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD
> WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any
> concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate
> process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD
> WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
> process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to
> that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case
> even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN
> bodies to take up a matter.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> Hi Andrew and all,
>
>
>
> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully
> written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts
> informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
>
>
>
> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to
> give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of
> inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed
> them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have
> are the following.
>
>
>
> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances
> of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things
> as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from
> that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder
> participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not
> what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some
> analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors
> were all univocally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think
> many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a
> long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands
> for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>
>
>
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
> identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume
> the first option is correct...
>
>
>
> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that
> you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
> recommendations and send them to other organizations:
>
> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
>
> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If
> there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to,
> for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a
> context that the MS opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO?
> What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance
> of the internet to traditional international regimes?
>
> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
>
> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
> improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if
> there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the
> forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
>
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
> chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a
> very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of
> methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the
> IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive
> additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and
> the business and the technical community were alligned against UN
> public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our
> model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
> funding to the IGF?
>
> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
> sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the
> IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD
> could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
>
>
>
> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
> Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear
> processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and
> harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly
> emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS
> processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and
> resources.
>
>
>
> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe
> the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the
> diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.
>
>
>
> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
> hoping we can continue the discussions.
>
> Thanks again for the good start
>
> Marília
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
> <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the
> specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is
> excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if
> want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit
> to a substantive agenda now.
>
>
>
> I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be,
> or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it
> will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more
> on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from
> the opportunity Brazil represents.
>
>
>
>
>
> —Mike
>
>
>
>
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/95fec62d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Feb  7 12:10:20 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:40:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
 - IG
In-Reply-To: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHCnXpJAzM0puvfhsNfm6_SXaF+LaoOALE_C4uCcamDFSQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Michael,

Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent earlier,
I felt compelled to respond directly.

I have no naive assumptions about power. I do have a very different reading
of the current state of play than you have. All evidence points in the
direction that there are (to quote your words) "significant, well-funded,
very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions
that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
whatever process" already in most policy processes. The crucial difference
between multistakeholder processes and other processes as far as I'm
concerned is that civil society now can provide such insertions as well.
That is the opportunity here, and as I don't see other stakeholder groups
abdicating their power in far more closed processes so easily, I am not
willing to let go of that opportunity until and unless we have explored
every last bits of its potential to allow groups in society with far less
power to influence policy processes and thus to help strengthen and further
democratic policy making.

Do we need safeguards etc? Yes, of course, and as I said in my earlier
message, I quite firmly believe that decentralisation is in fact one of
those safeguards, as is the malleability of the model we propose (which
does leave space for multilateral decision-making as well). But more
measures are required, and it is in this that a lot of our thinking is
invested at the moment (and I know that is the case for quite a few other
people as well).

Indeed, I have found that it is by working through these ideas step by step
that solutions emerge. Because my reading of the state of play is so
different from yours, I think that continuing to dig deeper and deeper and
sharpening these proposals step by step is the better bet, rather than
letting not having the perfect answers up front stop us from sharing any
ideas at all, and so that is the road on which I intend to continue.

All the best,
Anja







On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
> following the discussion on this list and others I'm struck by one
> overwhelming observation...
>
>
>
> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
> Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
> world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is
> in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.
>
>
>
> Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance structure and
> that proposal for the "management of decision making through MSism" all are
> making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
> assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and
> quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
> ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional
> interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.
>
>
>
> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
> there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
> ensure that these forces do not prevail... that these processes are not
> captured and subverted... i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
> institutional mechanisms that "we" (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
> package we are promoting.
>
>
>
> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
> whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming
> temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do *whatever it
> takes* to twist the result to support one's own narrow
> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of
> this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.
>
>
>
> This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
> sense.
>
>
>
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> *To:* Anne Jellema
> *Cc:* Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
> jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
> below:
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> /SNIP/
>
> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
> kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following
> function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional
> model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the
> goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an international body or
> forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for different
> goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through
> negotiated agreement on globally applicable but ultimately non-binding
> regulatory models (a la ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC
> Rights)? Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an
> enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key internet
> standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or
> none of the above?!
>
>
>
> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows
> such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal
> outlined here:
> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
> It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
> issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
> organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue is to
> be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage of making
> it possible to already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on
> the process, without needing to wait for agreement on the
> one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all issues for all
> time to come.
>
> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
> expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
> such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
> groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on
> provides as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that
> have a stake in that particular issue.
>
> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that
> I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
> document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
> making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
> agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
> would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
> takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
> of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
> This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
> request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Marilia Maciel* <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> Hi Andrew and all,
>
>
>
> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
> comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than
> to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
>
>
>
> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
> the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
> respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are
> also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following.
>
>
>
> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
> power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
> for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
> although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
> has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
> important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
> recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
> along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
> imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
> demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>
>
>
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify
> the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first
> option is correct...
>
>
>
> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
> mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
> recommendations and send them to other organizations:
>
> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
>
> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
> is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
> WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS
> opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that,
> and how does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
> international regimes?
>
> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
>
> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving
> the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
> renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
> the drama before Bali).
>
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
> chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
> very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
> to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
> heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
> the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
> community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
> the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
> enough voluntary funding to the IGF?
>
> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
> sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF
> and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move
> up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
>
>
>
> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
> model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
> prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and
> fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of
> your argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage
> those without power and resources.
>
>
>
> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the
> argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of
> internet issues could be more carefully explained.
>
>
>
> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
> can continue the discussions.
>
> Thanks again for the good start
>
> Marília
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <
> mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don't care what what the specifics of
> that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the
> window of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something
> substantive from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now.
>
>
>
> I'm not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
> should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
> shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
> consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
> represents.
>
>
>
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
>
> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446
>
> *Skype* mnemonic1026
>
> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA
>
>
>
> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.*
>
> www.internews.org | @internews <http://www.twitter.com/internews> |
> facebook.com/internews <http://www.facebook.com/internews>
>
>
>
> *From: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
> *To: *"jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust
> the list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point
> for progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
> disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
> discussions and negotiations can begin. ...
>
>
>
> The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
> best bits meeting
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
> On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Three examples might be:
>
> 1.       Net neutrality
>
> 2.       Protection for personal privacy
>
> 3.       Affordable access
>
> We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that
> we call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
> objectives both at the  international level and in national policies.
>
>
>
> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
> this in a two day conference
>
>
> I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
> The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
> why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
> rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
> your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
> other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.
>
> I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
> dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
> principles and mechanisms.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the
> global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* |
> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> 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.
>
>
>
> Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>to report this email as spam.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Anne Jellema
>
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> Cape Town, RSA
> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352
>
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/aa867b4b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Feb  7 12:16:51 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:46:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
	<20140207150553.775173a6@quill>
	<CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Norbert,

Like Gene, I am always interested in engaging with new people/organisations
on these issues, so do please count me in.

Thanks,
Anja


On 7 February 2014 19:48, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to
> promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in
> engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that
> this lens on IG process or principles has been lacking from the process so
> far.  So maybe you can explain -- is it that you have a different theory of
> how CS can/should seek to become more powerful?  A different approach to
> advocacy than what most activists/advocates have been practicing?  I'm sure
> many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how to
> obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all the
> time....
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
>> the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take
>> these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict
>> with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
>>
>> How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
>> discussion on that basis?
>>
>> If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
>> reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
>> going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
>> area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
>> request to please reply.)
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil
>> > and following the discussion on this list and others I'm struck by one
>> > overwhelming observation...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
>> > Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in
>> > a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only
>> > interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance structure
>> > and that proposal for the "management of decision making through
>> > MSism" all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say,
>> > naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant,
>> > well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking
>> > to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
>> > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
>> > whatever process.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
>> > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be
>> > taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail... that these
>> > processes are not captured and subverted... i.e. what are the defensive
>> > strategies and institutional mechanisms that "we" (CS) are advocating
>> > as part of whatever package we are promoting.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
>> > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
>> > whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly
>> > overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do
>> > whatever it takes to twist the result to support one's own narrow
>> > (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the
>> > significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and
>> > their outputs.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
>> > sense.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > M
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
>> > To: Anne Jellema
>> > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
>> > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>> > governance
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
>> > comments below:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > /SNIP/
>> >
>> > If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require
>> > some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form
>> > following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best
>> > institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once
>> > we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an
>> > international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be
>> > different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus
>> > and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
>> > applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or
>> > legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind
>> > of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and
>> > sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a
>> > la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
>> > decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it
>> > allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see
>> > our proposal outlined here:
>> >
>> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
>> > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
>> > unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
>> > issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
>> > organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue
>> > is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage
>> > of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is
>> > wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement
>> > on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
>> > issues for all time to come.
>> >
>> > Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
>> > expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each
>> > case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations
>> > among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process
>> > is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the
>> > different groups that have a stake in that particular issue.
>> >
>> > Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and
>> > that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting
>> > that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD
>> > WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any
>> > concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate
>> > process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD
>> > WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
>> > process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to
>> > that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case
>> > even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN
>> > bodies to take up a matter.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Anja
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>> > governance
>> > To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
>> > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Andrew and all,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully
>> > written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts
>> > informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to
>> > give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of
>> > inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed
>> > them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have
>> > are the following.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances
>> > of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things
>> > as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from
>> > that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder
>> > participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not
>> > what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some
>> > analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors
>> > were all univocally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think
>> > many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a
>> > long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands
>> > for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
>> > identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume
>> > the first option is correct...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that
>> > you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
>> > recommendations and send them to other organizations:
>> >
>> > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
>> >
>> > b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If
>> > there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to,
>> > for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a
>> > context that the MS opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO?
>> > What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance
>> > of the internet to traditional international regimes?
>> >
>> > c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
>> > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
>> >
>> > d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
>> > improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if
>> > there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the
>> > forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
>> >
>> > e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
>> > chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a
>> > very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of
>> > methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the
>> > IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive
>> > additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and
>> > the business and the technical community were alligned against UN
>> > public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our
>> > model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
>> > funding to the IGF?
>> >
>> > f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
>> > sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the
>> > IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD
>> > could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
>> > Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear
>> > processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and
>> > harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly
>> > emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS
>> > processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and
>> > resources.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
>> > possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe
>> > the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the
>> > diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
>> > hoping we can continue the discussions.
>> >
>> > Thanks again for the good start
>> >
>> > Marília
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Anne
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
>> > <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
>> > targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
>> > forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don't care what what the
>> > specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is
>> > excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if
>> > want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit
>> > to a substantive agenda now.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be,
>> > or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it
>> > will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more
>> > on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from
>> > the opportunity Brazil represents.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/9fbb472e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Feb  7 14:06:39 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 06:06:39 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba>

Happy to discuss this too Norbert – as you know I wrote recently on list about the various hidden agendas that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to multistakeholderism). I think mapping these agendas and areas of self interest would be a good guide to strategy.

Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this, but in any case happy to engage.

From: Anja Kovacs 
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:16 AM
To: Gene Kimmelman 
Cc: Norbert Bollow ; IGC ; Michael Gurstein ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

Hi Norbert,

Like Gene, I am always interested in engaging with new people/organisations on these issues, so do please count me in.

Thanks,

Anja




On 7 February 2014 19:48, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

  Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that this lens on IG process or principles has been lacking from the process so far.  So maybe you can explain -- is it that you have a different theory of how CS can/should seek to become more powerful?  A different approach to advocacy than what most activists/advocates have been practicing?  I'm sure many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how to obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all the time....



  On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

    I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
    the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take
    these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict
    with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.

    How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a
    discussion on that basis?

    If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do
    reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is
    going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic
    area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the
    request to please reply.)

    Greetings,
    Norbert



    Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

    > As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil
    > and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
    > overwhelming observation…
    >
    >
    >
    > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
    > Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in
    > a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only
    > interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure
    > and that proposal for the “management of decision making through
    > MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say,
    > naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant,
    > well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking
    > to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
    > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
    > whatever process.
    >
    >
    >
    > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
    > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be
    > taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these
    > processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive
    > strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating
    > as part of whatever package we are promoting.
    >
    >
    >
    > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
    > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
    > whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly
    > overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do
    > whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow
    > (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the
    > significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and
    > their outputs.
    >
    >
    >
    > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
    > sense.
    >
    >
    >
    > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
    >
    >
    >
    > M
    >
    >
    >
    > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
    > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
    > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
    > To: Anne Jellema
    > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
    > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
    > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
    > governance
    >
    >
    >
    > Dear all,
    >
    > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
    > comments below:
    >
    >
    >
    > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
    >
    > /SNIP/
    >
    > If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require
    > some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form
    > following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best
    > institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once
    > we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an
    > international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be
    > different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus
    > and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
    > applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or
    > legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind
    > of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and
    > sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a
    > la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!
    >
    >
    >
    > One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
    > decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it
    > allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see
    > our proposal outlined here:
    > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
    > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
    > unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
    > issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
    > organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue
    > is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage
    > of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is
    > wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement
    > on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
    > issues for all time to come.
    >
    > Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
    > expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each
    > case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations
    > among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process
    > is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the
    > different groups that have a stake in that particular issue.
    >
    > Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and
    > that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting
    > that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD
    > WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any
    > concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate
    > process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD
    > WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
    > process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to
    > that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case
    > even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN
    > bodies to take up a matter.
    >
    > Best,
    > Anja
    >
    >
    >
    > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    > From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
    > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
    > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
    > governance
    > To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
    > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
    >
    >
    > Hi Andrew and all,
    >
    >
    >
    > After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully
    > written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts
    > informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
    >
    >
    >
    > First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to
    > give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of
    > inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed
    > them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have
    > are the following.
    >
    >
    >
    > - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances
    > of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things
    > as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from
    > that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder
    > participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not
    > what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some
    > analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors
    > were all univocally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think
    > many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a
    > long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands
    > for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
    >
    >
    >
    > - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
    > identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume
    > the first option is correct...
    >
    >
    >
    > - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that
    > you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
    > recommendations and send them to other organizations:
    >
    > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
    >
    > b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If
    > there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to,
    > for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a
    > context that the MS opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO?
    > What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance
    > of the internet to traditional international regimes?
    >
    > c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
    > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
    >
    > d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
    > improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if
    > there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the
    > forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
    >
    > e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
    > chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a
    > very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of
    > methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the
    > IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive
    > additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and
    > the business and the technical community were alligned against UN
    > public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our
    > model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
    > funding to the IGF?
    >
    > f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
    > sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the
    > IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD
    > could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
    >
    >
    >
    > - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
    > Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear
    > processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and
    > harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly
    > emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS
    > processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and
    > resources.
    >
    >
    >
    > - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
    > possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe
    > the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the
    > diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.
    >
    >
    >
    > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
    > hoping we can continue the discussions.
    >
    > Thanks again for the good start
    >
    > Marília
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    > Anne
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
    > <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
    > targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
    > forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the
    > specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is
    > excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if
    > want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit
    > to a substantive agenda now.
    >
    >
    >
    > I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be,
    > or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it
    > will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more
    > on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from
    > the opportunity Brazil represents.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > —Mike
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    ____________________________________________________________
    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
         http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
  To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/17f4fe59/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kichango at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 14:18:13 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:18:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] Towards a Renewed Purpose and Vision for IGC,
 Co-coordinators 2015/2016
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8kvyC1qH67j0EHY2yxhyxNKMqXAP6E9GXLUBEHKgtNYg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

 Thank you again from both of us for all the strongly positive messages of
congratulation and support.

We have noticed the baptism of fire you have reserved for us, and take it
as your contribution to helping us get some tough skin for the ride.


We are very grateful for the good will that has been shown in order to
allow us to settle in with "a bit of peace on IGC". We hope especially that
we can, all working together, maybe not only achieve "a bit of peace" but
make it perpetual peace while still vigorously debating creative responses
to the Internet challenges as well as innovative ideas for its best
possible evolution.


Our joint vision is that by the end of our term (hopefully well before)
there is an IGC Renaissance, so to speak, with new and more cooperative
atmosphere in the Caucus and a track record of relevant
outputs/contributions to Internet policy processes. We are looking forward
to the continuation of input to this list and to the co-creation of
resources relevant to Internet governance, to Internet policy, and to any
other Internet issues that present themselves, paying particular attention
to the varied viewpoints of civil society.


The value of this caucus lies in the wealth of experience and the very wide
range of perspective and opinion held by its members. In order for their
values to be realized, those perspectives and opinions need to be
expressed. The way we see our function as co-coordinators is that we should
protect and facilitate that freedom of expression, *as unobtrusively as
possible,* indeed enable as diverse expression as possible, so that the
perspectives and opinions can become fairly negotiated and robust inputs to
the issues we confront together in Internet governance. In the same time
such freedom would be self-defeating if it only leads to incapacitating us
to forge a common purpose or at least to make collaborative, actionable and
incremental valuable contributions to those issues and for the evolution of
the Internet.


As much as we co-coordinators would like to keep this space focused on
material contribution to actual policy processes and decisions, we are not
in the business of policing posts to this list, much less the members'
opinions. It is the responsibility of each one of us to exercise judgment
in order to avoid language and posts that may lead to unproductive
engagements or even poison the atmosphere. As to any post/material whose
relevance to IGC may not be self-evident, it is a desirable thing (albeit
not mandatory) that the poster succinctly provides some rationale for
helping the reader make that connection. If they don't, anyone who feels
the need may ask for that. If such exchange were to occur, we urge all the
parties to try and keep it in as impersonal terms as possible. If anyone
feels strongly about making a point, let us keep it to the point,
precisely, not take it to the person whose ideas they think they have to
counter.


Wishing for the above does not make it a reality, we realize that, and
people will most probably post opinions or comments that won't make
everyone comfortable. But this does not have to lead to a tit for tat
reaction. If anyone feels like some material posted or opinion expressed
advances a political agenda they are opposed to and feels compelled to
react to that, instead of reacting to the person who posted the material,
why not take the minimalist approach to just post in turn a material that
present the opposite view they support?


There are potentially many positive goals for all the energy and wealth of
experience on this list. Let us focus our energy mainly on drafting and
discussing outputs and making useful contributions toward addressing issues
of Internet policy, Internet governance, Internet usage and the social as
well as societal impact of the Internet. We wish this note to be the most
obtrusive communication we will have to make to the list during our term.
We remain available to work off-list and bring sides together, if need be.
In the end, the continuous relevance of IGC is not just two
co-coordinators' job; it is in our hands to all of us.


Thank you for giving us a chance to help make this happen.


Deirdre Williams and Mawaki Chango
IGC Co-coordinators
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/e385b254/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From amedinagomez at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 14:45:43 2014
From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:45:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] Towards a Renewed Purpose and Vision for IGC,
 Co-coordinators 2015/2016
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8kvyC1qH67j0EHY2yxhyxNKMqXAP6E9GXLUBEHKgtNYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8kvyC1qH67j0EHY2yxhyxNKMqXAP6E9GXLUBEHKgtNYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM-_sgixwiDzR99rpfmQLLXB31k5UPUf6zbhr61bT57YcOWTOw@mail.gmail.com>

+1
I'm very happy for this words and trust
Congratulations

Antonio Medina Gomez


2014-02-07 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
>
>  Thank you again from both of us for all the strongly positive messages
> of congratulation and support.
>
> We have noticed the baptism of fire you have reserved for us, and take it
> as your contribution to helping us get some tough skin for the ride.
>
>
> We are very grateful for the good will that has been shown in order to
> allow us to settle in with "a bit of peace on IGC". We hope especially that
> we can, all working together, maybe not only achieve "a bit of peace" but
> make it perpetual peace while still vigorously debating creative responses
> to the Internet challenges as well as innovative ideas for its best
> possible evolution.
>
>
> Our joint vision is that by the end of our term (hopefully well before)
> there is an IGC Renaissance, so to speak, with new and more cooperative
> atmosphere in the Caucus and a track record of relevant
> outputs/contributions to Internet policy processes. We are looking forward
> to the continuation of input to this list and to the co-creation of
> resources relevant to Internet governance, to Internet policy, and to any
> other Internet issues that present themselves, paying particular attention
> to the varied viewpoints of civil society.
>
>
> The value of this caucus lies in the wealth of experience and the very
> wide range of perspective and opinion held by its members. In order for
> their values to be realized, those perspectives and opinions need to be
> expressed. The way we see our function as co-coordinators is that we should
> protect and facilitate that freedom of expression, *as unobtrusively as
> possible,* indeed enable as diverse expression as possible, so that the
> perspectives and opinions can become fairly negotiated and robust inputs to
> the issues we confront together in Internet governance. In the same time
> such freedom would be self-defeating if it only leads to incapacitating us
> to forge a common purpose or at least to make collaborative, actionable and
> incremental valuable contributions to those issues and for the evolution of
> the Internet.
>
>
> As much as we co-coordinators would like to keep this space focused on
> material contribution to actual policy processes and decisions, we are not
> in the business of policing posts to this list, much less the members'
> opinions. It is the responsibility of each one of us to exercise judgment
> in order to avoid language and posts that may lead to unproductive
> engagements or even poison the atmosphere. As to any post/material whose
> relevance to IGC may not be self-evident, it is a desirable thing (albeit
> not mandatory) that the poster succinctly provides some rationale for
> helping the reader make that connection. If they don't, anyone who feels
> the need may ask for that. If such exchange were to occur, we urge all the
> parties to try and keep it in as impersonal terms as possible. If anyone
> feels strongly about making a point, let us keep it to the point,
> precisely, not take it to the person whose ideas they think they have to
> counter.
>
>
> Wishing for the above does not make it a reality, we realize that, and
> people will most probably post opinions or comments that won't make
> everyone comfortable. But this does not have to lead to a tit for tat
> reaction. If anyone feels like some material posted or opinion expressed
> advances a political agenda they are opposed to and feels compelled to
> react to that, instead of reacting to the person who posted the material,
> why not take the minimalist approach to just post in turn a material that
> present the opposite view they support?
>
>
> There are potentially many positive goals for all the energy and wealth of
> experience on this list. Let us focus our energy mainly on drafting and
> discussing outputs and making useful contributions toward addressing issues
> of Internet policy, Internet governance, Internet usage and the social as
> well as societal impact of the Internet. We wish this note to be the most
> obtrusive communication we will have to make to the list during our term.
> We remain available to work off-list and bring sides together, if need be.
> In the end, the continuous relevance of IGC is not just two
> co-coordinators' job; it is in our hands to all of us.
>
>
> Thank you for giving us a chance to help make this happen.
>
>
> Deirdre Williams and Mawaki Chango
> IGC Co-coordinators
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/976e4d8a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 15:39:47 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 08:39:47 +1200
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil
 summit - IG
In-Reply-To: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCZt9oAxRMh60aBNHSsfMjCLJpqRkcP5JveGYnn9pnyOg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mike,

I note your message and the issues you raised. If you were to summarise
your message into themes to channel into the MAG Open Consultation, what
descriptive headers would they be?

Kind Regards,
Sala


On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:33 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
> following the discussion on this list and others I'm struck by one
> overwhelming observation...
>
>
>
> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
> Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
> world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is
> in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.
>
>
>
> Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance structure and
> that proposal for the "management of decision making through MSism" all are
> making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
> assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and
> quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
> ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional
> interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.
>
>
>
> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
> there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
> ensure that these forces do not prevail... that these processes are not
> captured and subverted... i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
> institutional mechanisms that "we" (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
> package we are promoting.
>
>
>
> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
> whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming
> temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do *whatever it
> takes* to twist the result to support one's own narrow
> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of
> this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.
>
>
>
> This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
> sense.
>
>
>
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> *To:* Anne Jellema
> *Cc:* Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
> jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
> below:
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> /SNIP/
>
> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
> kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following
> function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional
> model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the
> goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an international body or
> forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for different
> goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through
> negotiated agreement on globally applicable but ultimately non-binding
> regulatory models (a la ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC
> Rights)? Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an
> enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key internet
> standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or
> none of the above?!
>
>
>
> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows
> such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal
> outlined here:
> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
> It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
> issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
> organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue is to
> be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage of making
> it possible to already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on
> the process, without needing to wait for agreement on the
> one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all issues for all
> time to come.
>
> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
> expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
> such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
> groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on
> provides as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that
> have a stake in that particular issue.
>
> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that
> I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
> document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
> making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
> agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
> would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
> takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
> of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
> This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
> request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Marilia Maciel* <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> Hi Andrew and all,
>
>
>
> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
> comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than
> to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
>
>
>
> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
> the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
> respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are
> also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following.
>
>
>
> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
> power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
> for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
> although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
> has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
> important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
> recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
> along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
> imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
> demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>
>
>
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify
> the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first
> option is correct...
>
>
>
> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
> mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
> recommendations and send them to other organizations:
>
> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
>
> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
> is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
> WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS
> opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that,
> and how does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
> international regimes?
>
> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
>
> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving
> the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
> renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
> the drama before Bali).
>
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
> chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
> very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
> to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
> heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
> the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
> community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
> the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
> enough voluntary funding to the IGF?
>
> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
> sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF
> and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move
> up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
>
>
>
> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
> model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
> prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and
> fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of
> your argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage
> those without power and resources.
>
>
>
> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the
> argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of
> internet issues could be more carefully explained.
>
>
>
> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
> can continue the discussions.
>
> Thanks again for the good start
>
> Marília
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <
> mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don't care what what the specifics of
> that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the
> window of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something
> substantive from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now.
>
>
>
> I'm not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
> should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
> shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
> consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
> represents.
>
>
>
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
>
> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446
>
> *Skype* mnemonic1026
>
> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA
>
>
>
> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.*
>
> www.internews.org | @internews <http://www.twitter.com/internews> |
> facebook.com/internews <http://www.facebook.com/internews>
>
>
>
> *From: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
> *To: *"jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust
> the list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point
> for progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
> disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
> discussions and negotiations can begin. ...
>
>
>
> The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
> best bits meeting
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
> On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Three examples might be:
>
> 1.       Net neutrality
>
> 2.       Protection for personal privacy
>
> 3.       Affordable access
>
> We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that
> we call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
> objectives both at the  international level and in national policies.
>
>
>
> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
> this in a two day conference
>
>
> I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
> The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
> why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
> rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
> your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
> other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.
>
> I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
> dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
> principles and mechanisms.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the
> global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* |
> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> 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.
>
>
>
> Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>to report this email as spam.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Anne Jellema
>
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> Cape Town, RSA
> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352
>
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/2187d719/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 15:43:19 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 08:43:19 +1200
Subject: [governance] Towards a Renewed Purpose and Vision for IGC,
 Co-coordinators 2015/2016
In-Reply-To: <CAM-_sgixwiDzR99rpfmQLLXB31k5UPUf6zbhr61bT57YcOWTOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8kvyC1qH67j0EHY2yxhyxNKMqXAP6E9GXLUBEHKgtNYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM-_sgixwiDzR99rpfmQLLXB31k5UPUf6zbhr61bT57YcOWTOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBZRSvUshzaJK0J8tpUgBt-pDVG=MkxPoF2Q4yn=O-xyA@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks Deirdre and Mawaki,

I look forward to this new era in the Caucus. Thank you for your Message.
It is appreciated. It is indeed our collective responsibility to make sure
that the IGC remains relevant.

With every best wish for 2014,
Sala


On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Antonio Medina Gómez <amedinagomez at gmail.com
> wrote:

> +1
> I'm very happy for this words and trust
> Congratulations
>
> Antonio Medina Gomez
>
>
> 2014-02-07 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>  Thank you again from both of us for all the strongly positive messages
>> of congratulation and support.
>>
>> We have noticed the baptism of fire you have reserved for us, and take it
>> as your contribution to helping us get some tough skin for the ride.
>>
>>
>> We are very grateful for the good will that has been shown in order to
>> allow us to settle in with "a bit of peace on IGC". We hope especially that
>> we can, all working together, maybe not only achieve "a bit of peace" but
>> make it perpetual peace while still vigorously debating creative responses
>> to the Internet challenges as well as innovative ideas for its best
>> possible evolution.
>>
>>
>> Our joint vision is that by the end of our term (hopefully well before)
>> there is an IGC Renaissance, so to speak, with new and more cooperative
>> atmosphere in the Caucus and a track record of relevant
>> outputs/contributions to Internet policy processes. We are looking forward
>> to the continuation of input to this list and to the co-creation of
>> resources relevant to Internet governance, to Internet policy, and to
>> any other Internet issues that present themselves, paying particular
>> attention to the varied viewpoints of civil society.
>>
>>
>> The value of this caucus lies in the wealth of experience and the very
>> wide range of perspective and opinion held by its members. In order for
>> their values to be realized, those perspectives and opinions need to be
>> expressed. The way we see our function as co-coordinators is that we should
>> protect and facilitate that freedom of expression, *as unobtrusively as
>> possible,* indeed enable as diverse expression as possible, so that the
>> perspectives and opinions can become fairly negotiated and robust inputs to
>> the issues we confront together in Internet governance. In the same time
>> such freedom would be self-defeating if it only leads to incapacitating us
>> to forge a common purpose or at least to make collaborative, actionable and
>> incremental valuable contributions to those issues and for the evolution of
>> the Internet.
>>
>>
>> As much as we co-coordinators would like to keep this space focused on
>> material contribution to actual policy processes and decisions, we are not
>> in the business of policing posts to this list, much less the members'
>> opinions. It is the responsibility of each one of us to exercise judgment
>> in order to avoid language and posts that may lead to unproductive
>> engagements or even poison the atmosphere. As to any post/material whose
>> relevance to IGC may not be self-evident, it is a desirable thing (albeit
>> not mandatory) that the poster succinctly provides some rationale for
>> helping the reader make that connection. If they don't, anyone who feels
>> the need may ask for that. If such exchange were to occur, we urge all the
>> parties to try and keep it in as impersonal terms as possible. If anyone
>> feels strongly about making a point, let us keep it to the point,
>> precisely, not take it to the person whose ideas they think they have to
>> counter.
>>
>>
>> Wishing for the above does not make it a reality, we realize that, and
>> people will most probably post opinions or comments that won't make
>> everyone comfortable. But this does not have to lead to a tit for tat
>> reaction. If anyone feels like some material posted or opinion expressed
>> advances a political agenda they are opposed to and feels compelled to
>> react to that, instead of reacting to the person who posted the material,
>> why not take the minimalist approach to just post in turn a material that
>> present the opposite view they support?
>>
>>
>> There are potentially many positive goals for all the energy and wealth
>> of experience on this list. Let us focus our energy mainly on drafting and
>> discussing outputs and making useful contributions toward addressing issues
>> of Internet policy, Internet governance, Internet usage and the social as
>> well as societal impact of the Internet. We wish this note to be the most
>> obtrusive communication we will have to make to the list during our term.
>> We remain available to work off-list and bring sides together, if need be.
>> In the end, the continuous relevance of IGC is not just two
>> co-coordinators' job; it is in our hands to all of us.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for giving us a chance to help make this happen.
>>
>>
>> Deirdre Williams and Mawaki Chango
>> IGC Co-coordinators
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/9ab63b97/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 15:54:25 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 08:54:25 +1200
Subject: [governance] Brazil IGF Meeting [Content Submission Form] Open Call
 for Comments #NetMundial
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAq+aQKpKzTPOf9nJXhGtnSU651+fgRLoeey_VesauVhw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Apparently the Submission forms for Brazil are now online. They can be
accessed via  http://content.netmundial.br/

These are generic guidelines. If there are further requests for
clarification, we can consolidate our queries and channel them to our civil
society representatives who can inform us. In the mean time, we had best
get cracking at the type of content we would like for Brazil. *Deadline for
content submission is March 1, 2014.*

Further and better details of the Content Submission is available on the
link provided and also copied below for ease of reference and reading:


Content submission form

Content submission is divided in two sections. Contributions are invited on
Internet Governance Principles and The Roadmap for the Further Evolution of
the Internet Governance Ecosystem.

Significant work has been done to develop statements on various Internet
governance principles by a number of intergovernmental, civil society,
technical and academic, and private sector organizations. To help guide
your contributions we ask you to consider a non-exhaustive list of
statements available on the NETmundial
website.<http://content.netmundial.br/internet-governance-principles/>
It
may be helpful if contributions make reference to specific documents and
statements considered particularly appropriate to a set of universal
principles and explain why.

Issue 1. Internet Governance Principles

The NETmundial meeting aims to identify a set of universal principles to be
promoted as a global inspiration for the evolution of the Internet
worldwide. Those principles should be viewed from the perspective of the
Internet as a platform for social, economic and human development and a
catalyzer to exercise human rights of all people of the world.

Issue 2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
Ecosystem

Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem
There is a broad view about the need to continue evolving the
Multistakeholder Internet Governance Ecosystem. The goals are to energize
discussion and to achieve greater consensus of the community including a
broader range of stakeholders to provide possible means for developing
solutions to specific problems faced by governments/stakeholders. There are
several ongoing initiatives trying to contribute with that objective. The
meeting and related discussions will be an important milestone to support
the developing multistakeholder consensus on important governance issues.
It could serve as valuable inputs to other forums, seek for more
clarification and pursue agreements for the way forward

In submitting your contributions, please consider the following questions
as a guide:


   - Issues' statement (what are the issues?)
   - Is there a forum or Internet Governance body that develops policy or
   technical outcomes involved in these issues?
   - If there is, how and why are these issues not being adequately dealt
   with by that forum or organization?
   - What are the possible responses to the challenges posed by these
   issues?
   - How will the possible responses proposed ensure the stability,
   resilience and efficiency and also comply with principles of equitable
   multistakeholder participation, accountability, transparency and
   predictability?


Further background materials may be made available, as required such
materials will be linked from this page.

If you have questions about how to fill in the forms please contact the
Executive Secretariat <content at netmundial.br>.

Deadline for the content submission is March 1st.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/09cca58c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 16:21:28 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:21:28 -0200
Subject: [governance] Brazil IGF Meeting [Content Submission Form] Open
 Call for Comments #NetMundial
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiAq+aQKpKzTPOf9nJXhGtnSU651+fgRLoeey_VesauVhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiAq+aQKpKzTPOf9nJXhGtnSU651+fgRLoeey_VesauVhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1+wUsugAwgg+pnGXQxKRq7Xq-gmO=+WvY-r=xjDN7kFA@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for the cross-posting. Dear all, Please note that the page may still
undergo minor adjustments. The members of EMC thought it was very important
to open for contributions today, so all actors understand how the
contributions will be and what will be expected from them. The final
version of the page should be stable soon.

Best
Marília


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Apparently the Submission forms for Brazil are now online. They can be
> accessed via  http://content.netmundial.br/
>
> These are generic guidelines. If there are further requests for
> clarification, we can consolidate our queries and channel them to our civil
> society representatives who can inform us. In the mean time, we had best
> get cracking at the type of content we would like for Brazil. *Deadline
> for content submission is March 1, 2014.*
>
> Further and better details of the Content Submission is available on the
> link provided and also copied below for ease of reference and reading:
>
>
> Content submission form
>
> Content submission is divided in two sections. Contributions are invited
> on Internet Governance Principles and The Roadmap for the Further Evolution
> of the Internet Governance Ecosystem.
>
> Significant work has been done to develop statements on various Internet
> governance principles by a number of intergovernmental, civil society,
> technical and academic, and private sector organizations. To help guide
> your contributions we ask you to consider a non-exhaustive list of
> statements available on the NETmundial website.<http://content.netmundial.br/internet-governance-principles/> It
> may be helpful if contributions make reference to specific documents and
> statements considered particularly appropriate to a set of universal
> principles and explain why.
>
> Issue 1. Internet Governance Principles
>
> The NETmundial meeting aims to identify a set of universal principles to
> be promoted as a global inspiration for the evolution of the Internet
> worldwide. Those principles should be viewed from the perspective of the
> Internet as a platform for social, economic and human development and a
> catalyzer to exercise human rights of all people of the world.
>
> Issue 2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
> Ecosystem
>
> Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem
> There is a broad view about the need to continue evolving the
> Multistakeholder Internet Governance Ecosystem. The goals are to energize
> discussion and to achieve greater consensus of the community including a
> broader range of stakeholders to provide possible means for developing
> solutions to specific problems faced by governments/stakeholders. There are
> several ongoing initiatives trying to contribute with that objective. The
> meeting and related discussions will be an important milestone to support
> the developing multistakeholder consensus on important governance issues.
> It could serve as valuable inputs to other forums, seek for more
> clarification and pursue agreements for the way forward
>
> In submitting your contributions, please consider the following questions
> as a guide:
>
>
>    - Issues' statement (what are the issues?)
>    - Is there a forum or Internet Governance body that develops policy or
>    technical outcomes involved in these issues?
>    - If there is, how and why are these issues not being adequately dealt
>    with by that forum or organization?
>    - What are the possible responses to the challenges posed by these
>    issues?
>    - How will the possible responses proposed ensure the stability,
>    resilience and efficiency and also comply with principles of equitable
>    multistakeholder participation, accountability, transparency and
>    predictability?
>
>
> Further background materials may be made available, as required such
> materials will be linked from this page.
>
> If you have questions about how to fill in the forms please contact the
> Executive Secretariat <content at netmundial.br>.
>
> Deadline for the content submission is March 1st.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140207/13e14b49/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 16:23:23 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:23:23 +1200
Subject: [governance] Brazil IGF Meeting [Content Submission Form] Open
 Call for Comments #NetMundial
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1+wUsugAwgg+pnGXQxKRq7Xq-gmO=+WvY-r=xjDN7kFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiAq+aQKpKzTPOf9nJXhGtnSU651+fgRLoeey_VesauVhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1+wUsugAwgg+pnGXQxKRq7Xq-gmO=+WvY-r=xjDN7kFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiB_F7u8Z3hF1BbFA9Nb_HkC7jep_U7OXFo7kPfSgJrTLQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Sorry for the cross-posting. Dear all, Please note that the page may
> still undergo minor adjustments. The members of EMC thought it was very
> important to open for contributions today, so all actors understand how the
> contributions will be and what will be expected from them. The final
> version of the page should be stable soon.
>
> Best
> Marília
>
> Many thanks Marilia.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/3b6b8628/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 00:11:40 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 05:11:40 -0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
 - IG
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbF15cTr1DG=fDM5A8XP6WY5tBFtyOHE_hh90rdNZC0ZLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <CAFwCmbF15cTr1DG=fDM5A8XP6WY5tBFtyOHE_hh90rdNZC0ZLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <028601cf248c$4254aa60$c6fdff20$@gmail.com>

Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your
question and several of the others


 

My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we”
here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society
representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and
accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet
Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and
accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate
and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency
and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process.

 

By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a
scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly
not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for
making an effective challenge/sunlighting  of these potentials for
capture/subversion would at least be available.

 

Someone asked for a practical/detailed example
 (I worked as an auditor for
several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for
putting the below in somewhat of an audit format


 

Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example
.

 

1.       Where did 1Net come from?  Did it arise spontaneously one day from
Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so
who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking
1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes.
(Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of
the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide
something of an “audit trail”.)

 

2.       When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in
identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering
Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria
were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again
what criteria were used for discarding these?  Who were parties to these
decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in
these decisions?  What formal processes for doing this authorization were
followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If
not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but
again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of
response to these questions.

 

3.       Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net.
Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared?
Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts
were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary
authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off
on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those
who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the
first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give
no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I
would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer.
(In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but
very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that
is a red flag in itself.

 

4.       Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall
conceptual and web based formats and architecture. .  Who prepared this
format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be
designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this
design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under
what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site?
Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority
were those who did the sign-off operating? 

 

(Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary)
transparency to ensure accountability.  Without making any suggestion
concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding
the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor
for a public authority would ask in this context.) 

 

So why does this matter?

 

Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with
which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of
transparency is surely necessary and warranted.  And before anyone suggests
that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the
outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this

The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be
understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/framing-argument> )

 

and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an
argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument
<http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm>
by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 

 

1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance
discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its
interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the
Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the
discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the
discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the
establishment of a set of pre-structured forums.

 

This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and
whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no
oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the
accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil
meeting (and beyond?).  

 

I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process
 We
don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we
have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting
and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made.

 

I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not
be made more or less immediately available?  If these are “public” processes
operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should
be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public
processes.

 

In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the
red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused.

 

Mike

 

 

From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin;
genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit
charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially
tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to
be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So:
what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you
think we should be defending?

Best

Anne

On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
overwhelming observation
 

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in
the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and
that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are
making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite
likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure
the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into
whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
ensure that these forces do not prevail
 that these processes are not
captured and subverted
 i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming
resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge
from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in
some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result
to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests
and what the significance of this observation has to be for these
discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

Dear all,

I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
below:

 

On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

/SNIP/ 

If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following function,
maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional model(s) will
become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can think
harder about viable routes for an international body or forum to make an
impact on them, which might be different for different goals. Purely through
cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on
globally applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU)
or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind of
WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and sanctions?
Through control of key internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some
combination of the above? Or none of the above?!

 

One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a decentralised
model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows such a constant
and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal outlined here:
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all issues,
and some issues might even require a variety of organisations/institutions
to lead a process together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such
an approach also has the advantage of making it possible to already move on
issues for which there is wide agreement on the process, without needing to
wait for agreement on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care
of all issues for all time to come. 

Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on provides
as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that have a
stake in that particular issue. 

Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that I
think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
request other UN bodies to take up a matter.

Best,
Anja



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance
To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Hi Andrew and all,

 

After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to
hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.

 

First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also
useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. 

 

- It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.

 

- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the
more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is
correct...

 

- I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
recommendations and send them to other organizations: 

a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 

b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion
on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how
does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
international regimes? 

c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 

d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the
IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
the drama before Bali). 

e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
enough voluntary funding to the IGF?

f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and
the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up
to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully

 

- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight)
ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your
argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
without power and resources. 

 

- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility
to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that
it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues
could be more carefully explained.

 

That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
can continue the discussions.

Thanks again for the good start

Marília

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Anne

 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
<mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:

 

I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going forward
to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the specifics of that
substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the window
of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something substantive
from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now. 

 

I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
represents.

 

 

—Mike

 

 

-- 

Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project

mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446

Skype mnemonic1026




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 



-- 

Anne Jellema

Chief Executive Officer

Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 

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 |
<http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter:
@webfoundation

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/16c13ae0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 00:31:34 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 05:31:34 -0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
 - IG
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCnXpJAzM0puvfhsNfm6_SXaF+LaoOALE_C4uCcamDFSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <CAJqNAHCnXpJAzM0puvfhsNfm6_SXaF+LaoOALE_C4uCcamDFSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com>

Anja,

 

One thing that I do know from my own work on the ground is that the only
power that the marginalized have comes through their solidarity and
organization
 Vague notions of “decentralization” are precisely what those
who wish to retain power present as solutions knowing full well that such
would lead to the dispersal of energy and limited resources by the poor and
marginalized. (As by the way the Less Developed Countries know full well and
recognize as a tactic by the Developed Countries to reduce LDC opportunities
for participation in decision making since they don’t have the resources to
track and participate in multiple venues and multiple processes).

 

M

 

From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:10 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm;
&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

Hi Michael,

Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent earlier,
I felt compelled to respond directly.

I have no naive assumptions about power. I do have a very different reading
of the current state of play than you have. All evidence points in the
direction that there are (to quote your words) "significant, well-funded,
very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions
that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
whatever process" already in most policy processes. The crucial difference
between multistakeholder processes and other processes as far as I'm
concerned is that civil society now can provide such insertions as well.
That is the opportunity here, and as I don't see other stakeholder groups
abdicating their power in far more closed processes so easily, I am not
willing to let go of that opportunity until and unless we have explored
every last bits of its potential to allow groups in society with far less
power to influence policy processes and thus to help strengthen and further
democratic policy making. 

Do we need safeguards etc? Yes, of course, and as I said in my earlier
message, I quite firmly believe that decentralisation is in fact one of
those safeguards, as is the malleability of the model we propose (which does
leave space for multilateral decision-making as well). But more measures are
required, and it is in this that a lot of our thinking is invested at the
moment (and I know that is the case for quite a few other people as well). 

Indeed, I have found that it is by working through these ideas step by step
that solutions emerge. Because my reading of the state of play is so
different from yours, I think that continuing to dig deeper and deeper and
sharpening these proposals step by step is the better bet, rather than
letting not having the perfect answers up front stop us from sharing any
ideas at all, and so that is the road on which I intend to continue.

All the best,

Anja





 

 

On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
overwhelming observation
 

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in
the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and
that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are
making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite
likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure
the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into
whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
ensure that these forces do not prevail
 that these processes are not
captured and subverted
 i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming
resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge
from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in
some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result
to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests
and what the significance of this observation has to be for these
discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

Dear all,

I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
below:

 

On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

/SNIP/ 

If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following function,
maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional model(s) will
become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can think
harder about viable routes for an international body or forum to make an
impact on them, which might be different for different goals. Purely through
cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on
globally applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU)
or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind of
WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and sanctions?
Through control of key internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some
combination of the above? Or none of the above?!

 

One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a decentralised
model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows such a constant
and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal outlined here:
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all issues,
and some issues might even require a variety of organisations/institutions
to lead a process together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such
an approach also has the advantage of making it possible to already move on
issues for which there is wide agreement on the process, without needing to
wait for agreement on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care
of all issues for all time to come. 

Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on provides
as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that have a
stake in that particular issue. 

Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that I
think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
request other UN bodies to take up a matter.

Best,
Anja



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance
To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Hi Andrew and all,

 

After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to
hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.

 

First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also
useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. 

 

- It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.

 

- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the
more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is
correct...

 

- I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
recommendations and send them to other organizations: 

a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 

b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion
on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how
does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
international regimes? 

c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 

d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the
IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
the drama before Bali). 

e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
enough voluntary funding to the IGF?

f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and
the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up
to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully

 

- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight)
ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your
argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
without power and resources. 

 

- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility
to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that
it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues
could be more carefully explained.

 

That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
can continue the discussions.

Thanks again for the good start

Marília

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Anne

 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
<mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:

 

I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going forward
to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the specifics of that
substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the window
of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something substantive
from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now. 

 

I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
represents.

 

 

—Mike

 

 

-- 

Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project

 <mailto:mgodwin at internews.org> mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446

Skype mnemonic1026

Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA

 

INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.

 <http://www.internews.org/> www.internews.org |
<http://www.twitter.com/internews> @internews |
<http://www.facebook.com/internews> facebook.com/internews

 

From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust the
list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point for
progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
discussions and negotiations can begin. ...

 

The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
best bits meeting




-------- Original message --------
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> 
Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance 

On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

Three examples might be: 

1.       Net neutrality

2.       Protection for personal privacy

3.       Affordable access

We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that we
call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
objectives both at the  international level and in national policies. 

 

I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
this in a two day conference


I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.

I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
principles and mechanisms.

-- 

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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599> 

WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . 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.

 

Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw
0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>  to report this email as spam.

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





 

-- 

Anne Jellema

Chief Executive Officer

Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 

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 |
<http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter:
@webfoundation


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/521159ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 00:31:34 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 05:31:34 -0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil
 summit - IG
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiCZt9oAxRMh60aBNHSsfMjCLJpqRkcP5JveGYnn9pnyOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiCZt9oAxRMh60aBNHSsfMjCLJpqRkcP5JveGYnn9pnyOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <029f01cf248f$2c288510$84798f30$@gmail.com>

Sala,

 

I’m not sure my comments would fit into the MAG process
 

 

My feeling is that the MAG/IGF process is meant to divert discussion away
from significant issues/outcomes.  If my comments were to be addressed to
the MAG/IGF it would be to ask for full transparency and accountability for
those processes and parties which so strenuously insist on the IGF as the
premier framework for Internet Governance and thus direct attention away
from the discussion of frameworks and mechanisms that might address the
issues I consider to be significant as for example those raised in the
Community Informatics Declaration
<http://cirn.wikispaces.com/An+Internet+for+the+Common+Good+-+Engagement%2C+
Empowerment%2C+and+Justice+for+All> 

 

Best,

 

M.

 

From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
[mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 8:40 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Anja Kovacs; Anne Jellema; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm;
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil
summit - IG

 

Hi Mike,

 

I note your message and the issues you raised. If you were to summarise your
message into themes to channel into the MAG Open Consultation, what
descriptive headers would they be?

 

Kind Regards,

Sala

 

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:33 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
overwhelming observation
 

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in
the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and
that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are
making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite
likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure
the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into
whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
ensure that these forces do not prevail
 that these processes are not
captured and subverted
 i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming
resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge
from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in
some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result
to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests
and what the significance of this observation has to be for these
discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

Dear all,

I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
below:

 

On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

/SNIP/ 

If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following function,
maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional model(s) will
become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can think
harder about viable routes for an international body or forum to make an
impact on them, which might be different for different goals. Purely through
cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on
globally applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU)
or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind of
WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and sanctions?
Through control of key internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some
combination of the above? Or none of the above?!

 

One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a decentralised
model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows such a constant
and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal outlined here:
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all issues,
and some issues might even require a variety of organisations/institutions
to lead a process together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such
an approach also has the advantage of making it possible to already move on
issues for which there is wide agreement on the process, without needing to
wait for agreement on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care
of all issues for all time to come. 

Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on provides
as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that have a
stake in that particular issue. 

Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that I
think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
request other UN bodies to take up a matter.

Best,
Anja



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance
To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Hi Andrew and all,

 

After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to
hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.

 

First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also
useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. 

 

- It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.

 

- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the
more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is
correct...

 

- I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
recommendations and send them to other organizations: 

a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 

b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion
on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how
does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
international regimes? 

c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 

d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the
IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
the drama before Bali). 

e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
enough voluntary funding to the IGF?

f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and
the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up
to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully

 

- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight)
ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your
argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
without power and resources. 

 

- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility
to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that
it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues
could be more carefully explained.

 

That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
can continue the discussions.

Thanks again for the good start

Marília

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Anne

 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
<mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:

 

I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going forward
to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the specifics of that
substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the window
of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something substantive
from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now. 

 

I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
represents.

 

 

—Mike

 

 

-- 

Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project

 <mailto:mgodwin at internews.org> mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446

Skype mnemonic1026

Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA

 

INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.

 <http://www.internews.org/> www.internews.org |
<http://www.twitter.com/internews> @internews |
<http://www.facebook.com/internews> facebook.com/internews

 

From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust the
list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point for
progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
discussions and negotiations can begin. ...

 

The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
best bits meeting




-------- Original message --------
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> 
Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance 

On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

Three examples might be: 

1.       Net neutrality

2.       Protection for personal privacy

3.       Affordable access

We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that we
call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
objectives both at the  international level and in national policies. 

 

I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
this in a two day conference


I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.

I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
principles and mechanisms.

-- 

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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599> 

WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . 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.

 

Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw
0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>  to report this email as spam.

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





 

-- 

Anne Jellema

Chief Executive Officer

Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 <tel:%2B27%2061%20036%209352>  

tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 <tel:%2B27%2021%20788%204585>  

tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 <tel:%2B1%20202%20684%206885> 

Skype anne.jellema

@afjellema  
 

World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
<http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter:
@webfoundation


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053>  | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/80015fde/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kabani.asif at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 01:16:33 2014
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:16:33 +0500
Subject: [governance] Towards a Renewed Purpose and Vision for IGC,
 Co-coordinators 2015/2016
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8kvyC1qH67j0EHY2yxhyxNKMqXAP6E9GXLUBEHKgtNYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8kvyC1qH67j0EHY2yxhyxNKMqXAP6E9GXLUBEHKgtNYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOzvoR3YQ=ARQSJnFbkuWx49v0pKCZtToQRQf2E16pYWYeT=Cw@mail.gmail.com>

+1

-------
*Asif Kabani*
*Director*

 *Skype: kabaniasif*

*To connect*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
 [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>

[image: www.slideshare.net.png]

http://www.slideshare.net/kabani

Towards A Sustainable Earth:  Print Only When Necessary

------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY:
This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be
confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please
delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.




On 8 February 2014 00:18, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>  Thank you again from both of us for all the strongly positive messages
> of congratulation and support.
>
> We have noticed the baptism of fire you have reserved for us, and take it
> as your contribution to helping us get some tough skin for the ride.
>
>
> We are very grateful for the good will that has been shown in order to
> allow us to settle in with "a bit of peace on IGC". We hope especially that
> we can, all working together, maybe not only achieve "a bit of peace" but
> make it perpetual peace while still vigorously debating creative responses
> to the Internet challenges as well as innovative ideas for its best
> possible evolution.
>
>
> Our joint vision is that by the end of our term (hopefully well before)
> there is an IGC Renaissance, so to speak, with new and more cooperative
> atmosphere in the Caucus and a track record of relevant
> outputs/contributions to Internet policy processes. We are looking forward
> to the continuation of input to this list and to the co-creation of
> resources relevant to Internet governance, to Internet policy, and to any
> other Internet issues that present themselves, paying particular attention
> to the varied viewpoints of civil society.
>
>
> The value of this caucus lies in the wealth of experience and the very
> wide range of perspective and opinion held by its members. In order for
> their values to be realized, those perspectives and opinions need to be
> expressed. The way we see our function as co-coordinators is that we should
> protect and facilitate that freedom of expression, *as unobtrusively as
> possible,* indeed enable as diverse expression as possible, so that the
> perspectives and opinions can become fairly negotiated and robust inputs to
> the issues we confront together in Internet governance. In the same time
> such freedom would be self-defeating if it only leads to incapacitating us
> to forge a common purpose or at least to make collaborative, actionable and
> incremental valuable contributions to those issues and for the evolution of
> the Internet.
>
>
> As much as we co-coordinators would like to keep this space focused on
> material contribution to actual policy processes and decisions, we are not
> in the business of policing posts to this list, much less the members'
> opinions. It is the responsibility of each one of us to exercise judgment
> in order to avoid language and posts that may lead to unproductive
> engagements or even poison the atmosphere. As to any post/material whose
> relevance to IGC may not be self-evident, it is a desirable thing (albeit
> not mandatory) that the poster succinctly provides some rationale for
> helping the reader make that connection. If they don't, anyone who feels
> the need may ask for that. If such exchange were to occur, we urge all the
> parties to try and keep it in as impersonal terms as possible. If anyone
> feels strongly about making a point, let us keep it to the point,
> precisely, not take it to the person whose ideas they think they have to
> counter.
>
>
> Wishing for the above does not make it a reality, we realize that, and
> people will most probably post opinions or comments that won't make
> everyone comfortable. But this does not have to lead to a tit for tat
> reaction. If anyone feels like some material posted or opinion expressed
> advances a political agenda they are opposed to and feels compelled to
> react to that, instead of reacting to the person who posted the material,
> why not take the minimalist approach to just post in turn a material that
> present the opposite view they support?
>
>
> There are potentially many positive goals for all the energy and wealth of
> experience on this list. Let us focus our energy mainly on drafting and
> discussing outputs and making useful contributions toward addressing issues
> of Internet policy, Internet governance, Internet usage and the social as
> well as societal impact of the Internet. We wish this note to be the most
> obtrusive communication we will have to make to the list during our term.
> We remain available to work off-list and bring sides together, if need be.
> In the end, the continuous relevance of IGC is not just two
> co-coordinators' job; it is in our hands to all of us.
>
>
> Thank you for giving us a chance to help make this happen.
>
>
> Deirdre Williams and Mawaki Chango
> IGC Co-coordinators
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/561a4cd9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  8 07:53:20 2014
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:53:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] Towards a Renewed Purpose and Vision for IGC,
 Co-coordinators 2015/2016
In-Reply-To:  <CACTo+v8kvyC1qH67j0EHY2yxhyxNKMqXAP6E9GXLUBEHKgtNYg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CACTo+v8kvyC1qH67j0EHY2yxhyxNKMqXAP6E9GXLUBEHKgtNYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DUB111-W883DCCE26B131E5F0E73B4B4960@phx.gbl>

The very best to you Mawaki and Deidre.

From: kichango at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:18:13 +0000
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] Towards a Renewed Purpose and Vision for IGC, Co-coordinators 2015/2016

Dear All,





Thank you again from
both of us for all the strongly positive messages of congratulation and
support.

We have noticed the baptism of fire you have
reserved for us, and take it as your contribution to helping us get some tough
skin for the ride.


We are very grateful
for the good will that has been shown in order to allow us to settle in
with "a bit of peace on IGC”. We hope especially that we can, all working
together, maybe not only achieve “a bit of peace" but make it perpetual
peace while still vigorously debating creative responses to the Internet
challenges as well as innovative ideas for its best possible evolution.


Our joint vision is that by the end
of our term (hopefully well before) there is an IGC Renaissance, so to speak,
with new and more cooperative atmosphere in the Caucus and a track record of
relevant outputs/contributions to Internet policy processes. We are looking
forward to the continuation of input to this list and to the co-creation of
resources relevant to Internet governance, to Internet policy, and
to any other Internet issues that present themselves, paying particular
attention to the varied viewpoints of civil society. 





The value of this caucus lies in the
wealth of experience and the very wide range of perspective and opinion held by
its members. In order for their values to be realized, those perspectives and
opinions need to be expressed. The way we see our function as co-coordinators
is that we should protect and facilitate that freedom of expression, as
unobtrusively as possible, indeed enable as diverse expression as
possible, so that the perspectives and opinions can become fairly negotiated and
robust inputs to the issues we confront together in Internet governance. In the
same time such freedom would be self-defeating if it only leads to incapacitating
us to forge a common purpose or at least to make collaborative, actionable and incremental
valuable contributions to those issues and for the evolution of the Internet.  


As much as we co-coordinators would
like to keep this space focused on material contribution to actual policy
processes and decisions, we are not in the business of policing posts to this
list, much less the members’ opinions. It is the responsibility of each one of
us to exercise judgment in order to avoid language and posts that may lead to
unproductive engagements or even poison the atmosphere. As to any post/material
whose relevance to IGC may not be self-evident, it is a desirable thing (albeit
not mandatory) that the poster succinctly provides some rationale for helping
the reader make that connection. If they don’t, anyone who feels the need may
ask for that. If such exchange were to occur, we urge all the parties to try
and keep it in as impersonal terms as possible. If anyone feels strongly about
making a point, let us keep it to the point, precisely, not take it to the
person whose ideas they think they have to counter.


Wishing for the above does not make
it a reality, we realize that, and people will most probably post opinions or
comments that won’t make everyone comfortable. But this does not have to lead
to a tit for tat reaction. If anyone feels like some material posted or opinion
expressed advances a political agenda they are opposed to and feels compelled
to react to that, instead of reacting to the person who posted the material,
why not take the minimalist approach to just post in turn a material that
present the opposite view they support? 


There are potentially many positive
goals for all the energy and wealth of experience on this list. Let us focus
our energy mainly on drafting and discussing outputs and making useful
contributions toward addressing issues of Internet policy, Internet governance,
Internet usage and the social as well as societal impact of the Internet. We
wish this note to be the most obtrusive communication we will have to make to
the list during our term. We remain available to work off-list and bring sides
together, if need be. In the end, the continuous relevance of IGC is not just
two co-coordinators’ job; it is in our hands to all of us.   


Thank you for giving us a chance to
help make this happen.


Deirdre Williams and Mawaki Chango

IGC Co-coordinators
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/3e07b19a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Sat Feb  8 09:36:22 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:36:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] Speaking of accountability
Message-ID: <52F640E6.5050004@acm.org>

Hi,

The ICANN AOC based Accountability and Transparency Review Team's report 
from 2013 been published in the UN 6 languages. These just came out in 
the last weeks.

http://www.icann.org/zh/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-zh.htm

And coincidentally the comment period before board response to the ATRT 
report is still open

Comment Close Date: 21 February 2014 - 23:59 UTC
Reply Close Date: 15 March 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Replies are comments too. They are just supposed to be comments about 
comments, i.e. responses.

avri

Personal note:  when I first got involved with ICANN in 2005, I never 
could have imagined sending such a message as this. ICANN has come quite 
a ways.  Sometimes lots of people chipping away day after day, year 
after year does make a difference.

And yes, there is still a long long way to go.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Sat Feb  8 19:48:31 2014
From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:48:31 -0200
Subject: [governance] How the U.S./NSA almost Killed the Internet!
Message-ID: <CAPM93kXoc5cpgZOC_sjAJB5armC+Mbt5YSHMkTvm5pAM0U66aA@mail.gmail.com>

The Wired in February 10, that is being sold in bookshops (I bought this
magazine today), has the following headline "How the U.S. almost Killed the
Internet - and why it still Could", but this publication by the Internet
has another headline "How the NSA almost Killed the Internet". It is really
wierd! Check this out:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/01/how-the-us-almost-killed-the-internet/

Could have been the Wired censored or could have been "self-censored"?!
What about freedom of expression?! This is an interesting question!

-- 
Hindenburgo Pires

Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Departamento de Geografia Humana
*Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org <http://www.cibergeo.org>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/ef9a5ef1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sat Feb  8 20:25:34 2014
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:25:34 +0800
Subject: [governance] February IGF consultation [IGFmaglist] Request for
 Public input
In-Reply-To: <A9774713-FFC8-4F6E-9C6A-B88AD4D6C022@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <A9774713-FFC8-4F6E-9C6A-B88AD4D6C022@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <E77D4A3D-BF96-4FCC-846D-A69D7FD7F27A@ciroap.org>

On the Best Bits list we put together a submission to the IGF in response to the request for public input, which you can find at http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/.  IGC members are welcome to endorse it if they agree.  The deadline for submissions is tomorrow.

Thanks.

On 13 Jan 2014, at 12:08 am, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> 
> 
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/2014-January/000636.html
> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> I have posted on the IGF website the following request for public input:
>> 
>> Request for public input: All stakeholders are encouraged to submit suggestions or ideas for issues to be discussed at the 2014 IGF to the following email address: 
>> IGF2014si at intgovforum.org.
>> We kindly request that proposals are kept short and succinct. These proposals will be put into a synthesis paper that will act as an input into the discussions. The deadline for submission is 10 February 2014.
>> 
>> I would be grateful if you could all circulate it amongst your respective stakeholders.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Chengetai 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/873c207a/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  8 20:42:31 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 20:42:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] How the U.S./NSA almost Killed the Internet!
In-Reply-To: <CAPM93kXoc5cpgZOC_sjAJB5armC+Mbt5YSHMkTvm5pAM0U66aA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPM93kXoc5cpgZOC_sjAJB5armC+Mbt5YSHMkTvm5pAM0U66aA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhprq+t4SsBswBasXx3RMm577qDjRoS1KnQzNAH+sfEsQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Hindenburgo Pires <hindenburgo at gmail.com>wrote:

> The Wired in February 10, that is being sold in bookshops (I bought this
> magazine today), has the following headline "How the U.S. almost Killed the
> Internet - and why it still Could", but this publication by the Internet
> has another headline "How the NSA almost Killed the Internet". It is really
> wierd! Check this out:
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/01/how-the-us-almost-killed-the-internet/
>
> Could have been the Wired censored or could have been "self-censored"?!
> What about freedom of expression?! This is an interesting question!
>


Print and web publications often have different headlines, there is zero
evidence of censorship, self or otherwise.  If anything, the wen headline
is even more hard-hitting, probably why they changed it!


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/e6e2634e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Feb  8 21:36:07 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:06:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] How the U.S./NSA almost Killed the Internet!
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxhprq+t4SsBswBasXx3RMm577qDjRoS1KnQzNAH+sfEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPM93kXoc5cpgZOC_sjAJB5armC+Mbt5YSHMkTvm5pAM0U66aA@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhprq+t4SsBswBasXx3RMm577qDjRoS1KnQzNAH+sfEsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FDB5EF29-951A-4793-92E2-274D89513145@hserus.net>

Having worked as a sort of journalist (stringer for a local paper, contributing middles) when I was a student, I can confirm that the web and print editions are likely to have different headlines for a lot of reasons, such as for example typesetting during a print run uses different fonts than on the web.  Did the actual article change from the print to the web edition?

--srs (iPad)

> On 09-Feb-2014, at 7:12, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Hindenburgo Pires <hindenburgo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Wired in February 10, that is being sold in bookshops (I bought this magazine today), has the following headline "How the U.S. almost Killed the Internet - and why it still Could", but this publication by the Internet has another headline "How the NSA almost Killed the Internet". It is really wierd! Check this out: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/01/how-the-us-almost-killed-the-internet/
>> 
>> Could have been the Wired censored or could have been "self-censored"?! What about freedom of expression?! This is an interesting question!
> 
> 
> Print and web publications often have different headlines, there is zero evidence of censorship, self or otherwise.  If anything, the wen headline is even more hard-hitting, probably why they changed it! 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/f53e6d7a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 22:58:22 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:58:22 -0000
Subject: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
Message-ID: <01a201cf254b$2fd978b0$8f8c6a10$@gmail.com>

Colleagues,

 

As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think,
at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of
multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following:

 

Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message
concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with
no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in
support of this call?

 

Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as
Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee
direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from
1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the
1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call.

 

Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to
respond to emails.

 

M

 

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM
To: 'Anne Jellema'
Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin';
'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org';
'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your
question and several of the others


 

My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we”
here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society
representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and
accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet
Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and
accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate
and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency
and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process.

 

By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a
scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly
not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for
making an effective challenge/sunlighting  of these potentials for
capture/subversion would at least be available.

 

Someone asked for a practical/detailed example
 (I worked as an auditor for
several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for
putting the below in somewhat of an audit format


 

Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example
.

 

1.       Where did 1Net come from?  Did it arise spontaneously one day from
Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so
who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking
1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes.
(Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of
the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide
something of an “audit trail”.)

 

2.       When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in
identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering
Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria
were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again
what criteria were used for discarding these?  Who were parties to these
decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in
these decisions?  What formal processes for doing this authorization were
followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If
not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but
again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of
response to these questions.

 

3.       Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net.
Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared?
Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts
were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary
authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off
on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those
who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the
first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give
no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I
would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer.
(In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but
very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that
is a red flag in itself.

 

4.       Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall
conceptual and web based formats and architecture. .  Who prepared this
format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be
designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this
design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under
what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site?
Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority
were those who did the sign-off operating? 

 

(Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary)
transparency to ensure accountability.  Without making any suggestion
concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding
the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor
for a public authority would ask in this context.) 

 

So why does this matter?

 

Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with
which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of
transparency is surely necessary and warranted.  And before anyone suggests
that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the
outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this

The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be
understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/framing-argument> )

 

and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an
argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument
<http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm>
by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 

 

1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance
discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its
interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the
Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the
discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the
discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the
establishment of a set of pre-structured forums.

 

This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and
whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no
oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the
accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil
meeting (and beyond?).  

 

I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process
 We
don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we
have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting
and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made.

 

I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not
be made more or less immediately available?  If these are “public” processes
operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should
be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public
processes.

 

In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the
red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused.

 

Mike

 

 

From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin;
genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit
charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially
tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to
be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So:
what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you
think we should be defending?

Best

Anne

On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
overwhelming observation
 

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in
the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and
that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are
making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite
likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure
the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into
whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
ensure that these forces do not prevail
 that these processes are not
captured and subverted
 i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming
resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge
from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in
some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result
to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests
and what the significance of this observation has to be for these
discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

Dear all,

I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
below:

 

On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

/SNIP/ 

If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following function,
maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional model(s) will
become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can think
harder about viable routes for an international body or forum to make an
impact on them, which might be different for different goals. Purely through
cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on
globally applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU)
or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind of
WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and sanctions?
Through control of key internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some
combination of the above? Or none of the above?!

 

One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a decentralised
model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows such a constant
and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal outlined here:
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all issues,
and some issues might even require a variety of organisations/institutions
to lead a process together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such
an approach also has the advantage of making it possible to already move on
issues for which there is wide agreement on the process, without needing to
wait for agreement on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care
of all issues for all time to come. 

Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on provides
as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that have a
stake in that particular issue. 

Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that I
think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
request other UN bodies to take up a matter.

Best,
Anja



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance
To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Hi Andrew and all,

 

After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to
hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.

 

First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also
useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. 

 

- It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.

 

- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the
more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is
correct...

 

- I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
recommendations and send them to other organizations: 

a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 

b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion
on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how
does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
international regimes? 

c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 

d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the
IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
the drama before Bali). 

e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
enough voluntary funding to the IGF?

f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and
the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up
to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully

 

- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight)
ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your
argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
without power and resources. 

 

- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility
to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that
it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues
could be more carefully explained.

 

That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
can continue the discussions.

Thanks again for the good start

Marília

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Anne

 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
<mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:

 

I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going forward
to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the specifics of that
substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the window
of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something substantive
from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now. 

 

I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
represents.

 

 

—Mike

 

 

-- 

Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project

mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446

Skype mnemonic1026




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 



-- 

Anne Jellema

Chief Executive Officer

Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 

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 |
<http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter:
@webfoundation

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/d99f6564/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Feb  8 23:08:40 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:38:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
In-Reply-To: <01a201cf254b$2fd978b0$8f8c6a10$@gmail.com>
References: <01a201cf254b$2fd978b0$8f8c6a10$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CC764629-C4BE-4707-97C5-7275203DB6EC@hserus.net>

I would rather you specifically call for consensus before leaping to an assumption that you actually have it.  I did not respond yet but no, I think 1net is open and transparent, and their not including you in a committee doesn't mean they lack transparency.

So no, of you ask me you don't have consensus. Thanks.

--srs (iPad)

> On 09-Feb-2014, at 9:28, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Colleagues,
>  
> As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following:
>  
> Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call?
>  
> Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call.
>  
> Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails.
>  
> M
>  
> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM
> To: 'Anne Jellema'
> Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org)
> Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>  
> Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others…
>  
> My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process.
>  
> By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting  of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available.
>  
> Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format…
>  
> Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example….
>  
> 1.       Where did 1Net come from?  Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.)
>  
> 2.       When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these?  Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions?  What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions.
>  
> 3.       Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net.  Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself.
>  
> 4.       Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. .  Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating?
>  
> (Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability.  Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.)
>  
> So why does this matter?
>  
> Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted.  And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this
> The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website)
>  
> and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others.
>  
> 1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums.
>  
> This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?). 
>  
> I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made.
>  
> I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available?  If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes.
>  
> In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused.
>  
> Mike
>  
>  
> From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] 
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>  
> A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending?
> Best
> Anne
> 
> On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one overwhelming observation…
> 
>  
> 
> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet. 
> 
>  
> 
> Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.
> 
>  
> 
> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are promoting.
> 
>  
> 
> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.
> 
>  
> 
> This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common sense.
> 
>  
> 
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> To: Anne Jellema
> Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below:
> 
>  
> 
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> /SNIP/
> 
> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!
> 
>  
> 
> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal outlined here: http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all issues, and some issues might even require a variety of organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all issues for all time to come.
> 
> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that have a stake in that particular issue.
> 
> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
> 
> Best,
> Anja
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> 
> 
> Hi Andrew and all,
> 
>  
> 
> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
> 
>  
> 
> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. 
> 
>  
> 
> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
> 
>  
> 
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is correct...
> 
>  
> 
> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce recommendations and send them to other organizations: 
> 
> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 
> 
> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional international regimes? 
> 
> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 
> 
> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali). 
> 
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary funding to the IGF?
> 
> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
> 
>  
> 
> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. 
> 
>  
> 
> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.
> 
>  
> 
> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions.
> 
> Thanks again for the good start
> 
> Marília
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Anne
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear, targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now. 
> 
>  
> 
> I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil represents.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> —Mike
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
> Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
> 
> mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446
> 
> Skype mnemonic1026
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
> 
> 
> --
> Anne Jellema
> Chief Executive Officer
> Cape Town, RSA
> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 
> 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
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/eb8080f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 23:18:13 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:18:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
Message-ID: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>

With all due respect,  making 1net the focus of concern strikes me as a distraction from more important substantive issues. We need the Brazil conference ( not 1net) to be inclusive,  open and address civil society priorities. 

-------- Original message --------
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Date: 02/08/2014  10:58 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net 
 
Colleagues,
 
As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following:
 
Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call?
 
Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call.
 
Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails.
 
M
 
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM
To: 'Anne Jellema'
Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
 
Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others…
 
My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process.
 
By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting  of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available.
 
Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format…
 
Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example….
 
1.       Where did 1Net come from?  Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.)
 
2.       When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these?  Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions?  What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions.
 
3.       Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net.  Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself.
 
4.       Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. .  Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating?
 
(Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability.  Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.)
 
So why does this matter?
 
Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted.  And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this
The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website)
 
and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others.
 
1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums.
 
This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?).  
 
I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made.
 
I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available?  If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes.
 
In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused.
 
Mike
 
 
From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
 
A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending?
Best
Anne

On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one overwhelming observation…

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet. 

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140208/7d23570b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb  8 23:37:46 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 04:37:46 -0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
In-Reply-To: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <01c801cf2550$b0082950$10187bf0$@gmail.com>

But with all due respect, 1Net has been accorded and accorded itself a central role in framing the ”multistakeholder” inputs and discussions into Brazil and thus very much warrants the need for full transparency.  

 

I see no reason why my rather simple and straightforward questions couldn’t be answered with one fairly lengthy email (perhaps one hour’s work), unless of course, (wearing my auditor’s hat) there is something that those who could be providing the requested information don’t want us to know.

 

What greater priorities could civil society have than transparency and accountability?

 

M

 

From: genekimmelman at gmail.com [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 4:18 AM
To: gurstein at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net

 

With all due respect,  making 1net the focus of concern strikes me as a distraction from more important substantive issues. We need the Brazil conference ( not 1net) to be inclusive,  open and address civil society priorities. 


-------- Original message --------
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Date: 02/08/2014 10:58 PM (GMT-05:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net 



Colleagues,

 

As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following:

 

Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call?

 

Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call.

 

Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails.

 

M

 

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM
To: 'Anne Jellema'
Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others…

 

My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process.

 

By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting  of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available.

 

Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format…

 

Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example….

 

1.       Where did 1Net come from?  Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.)

 

2.       When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these?  Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions?  What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions.

 

3.       Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net.  Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself.

 

4.       Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. .  Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? 

 

(Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability.  Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.) 

 

So why does this matter?

 

Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted.  And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this

The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website <http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/framing-argument> )

 

and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument <http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm>  by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 

 

1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums.

 

This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?).  

 

I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made.

 

I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available?  If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes.

 

In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused.

 

Mike

 

 

From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending?

Best

Anne

On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one overwhelming observation… 

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/5fdc0699/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb  9 01:02:54 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:32:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>


please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about

http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business

The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..

Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, 
and history questions its role in subverting democracy.

parminder



On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow being "opposition" to those processes.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>
>
>
> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>> multistakeholderism)
>
> Thanks you for include the parenthetical.  To be honest that is my greater concerns.
>
> 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Feb  9 02:26:22 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:26:22 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba>

That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of 
multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real and 
present danger.

But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we call 
democracy? In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch 
media telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long 
history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to corporate 
interests in determining policy, with all too frequent outbreaks of corrupt 
payments to politicians and political parties. The power of corporate 
"donations", from what I can see, is even worse in some other countries.

And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable 
arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.

The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating  as regards nation 
states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that should 
genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business interests 
from crowding the public out of the tent ".

I couldn't agree more.

For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any form of 
governance, highly corruptible .

The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in about 
2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that in the 
discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of WSIS, the term 
usually used to describe the existing arrangements was “private 
sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the setting up of the 
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)".

It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was retrofitted 
to existing internet governance, rather than being a central design element.

Ian Peter





-----Original Message----- 
From: parminder
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: 
substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)


please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about

http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business

The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..

Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late,
and history questions its role in subverting democracy.

parminder



On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full accountability 
> and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who equate an 
> insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow being 
> "opposition" to those processes.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was 
> Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>
>
>
> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>> multistakeholderism)
>
> Thanks you for include the parenthetical.  To be honest that is my greater 
> concerns.
>
> avri
>
>







____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Feb  9 02:49:34 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:49:34 +1100
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>

Agree with Gene. 1net is an experiment we can abandon at any time if it does not become productive. So no I do not support the sort of statement suggested below.

Which is not to rule out a consensus document of some sort in the future addressing accountability and transparency issues.

From: genekimmelman at gmail.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 3:18 PM
To: gurstein at gmail.com ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net

With all due respect,  making 1net the focus of concern strikes me as a distraction from more important substantive issues. We need the Brazil conference ( not 1net) to be inclusive,  open and address civil society priorities. 


-------- Original message --------
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Date: 02/08/2014 10:58 PM (GMT-05:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net 



Colleagues,

 

As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following:

 

Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call?

 

Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call.

 

Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails.

 

M

 

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM
To: 'Anne Jellema'
Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others…

 

My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process.

 

By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting  of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available.

 

Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format…

 

Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example….

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]-->Where did 1Net come from?  Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.)

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these?  Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions?  What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions.

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.       <!--[endif]-->Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net.  Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself.

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.       <!--[endif]-->Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. .  Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? 

 

(Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability.  Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.) 

 

So why does this matter?

 

Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted.  And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this

The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website)

 

and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 

 

1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums.

 

This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?).  

 

I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made.

 

I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available?  If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes.

 

In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused.

 

Mike

 

 

From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending?

Best

Anne

On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one overwhelming observation… 

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/f487119a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb  9 03:06:07 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:36:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 09 February 2014 12:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of 
> multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real 
> and present danger.
>
> But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we 
> call democracy?

Ian

This is a highly dangerous statement to make... What we know as 
democracy and call democracy is for us - the people - to claim.. Not to 
call names, and throw away. And people have risen and often claimed it, 
as even some recent events have shown, and more will come, with the 
Internet no doubt playing a big role... To speak so loosely about 
democracy - that it is the 'this bad system' or that, is as I said 
dangerous, and basically giving the priceless human heritage of 
democracy away. We have to be very careful to be talking about things 
that are so high and valued as democracy.

So, I really do not understand what you mean to say about  'same 
danger'... You cannot rise and claim corporatist MSism as you can claim 
democracy. Is it a small difference. Recently, a group, less than a year 
old, which was protesting corruption on the roads, and being openly 
ridiculed as useless and powerless, took control of the government of 
New Delhi by wining elections. This was done entirely through crowd 
sourced money and volunteers.  Can you think of a similar process for 
taking over Davos! But, if you are talking about just the global level 
democracy or the absence of it, yes , lets talk about it. I am ready for 
the most drastic proposal, as long as it does not involve giving 
privileged positions to the already extra-ordinarily powerful global 
corporations. Ian, I really mean it. Lets discuss global democracy. That 
is the discussion to have.

But before that let us issue a clear statement that we are against what 
is happening in the name of MSism, which is really WEF-ism or Davos-ism. 
That we are against giving any special political privilege to global 
corporates.  That we strongly condemn and disassociate from all those 
who openly say (including on these lists) that google should vote at the 
same level as a country government in global policy making. Lets get 
together and say all this... And then also say what is wrong with the UN 
and what we want changed. That is the discussion we need to have.

BTW, whenever some people, Wolfgang for instance, have sought that G 20  
- which includes India - takes up a special role in global IG, I have 
opposed it, This is where UN is more democratic than a Davos or G 20. 
Therefore our critiques and positions should be context specific and 
pragmatic, to push things in the right direction rather than the wrong 
direction. That is our political responsibility. Simply put, going for 
Davos kind of governance solutions - which, sorry to say, I think most 
IG civil society is abetting - is the 'wrong direction' to push. UN 
reform on the other hand is the 'right direction' to push. The choice, 
as actually presented, I see is between the two. And as responsible 
political actors we have to negotiate our way - however idealistic in 
its final form - through the given landscape where are situated at the 
moment, and taking stock of the forces that we can see and feel at work.

If you or someone else has a third directions, clearly different from 
the two above, please mention that... I see MIlton's proposals, Jeremy's 
MIC proposal, some proposals from Joana's organisation, etc, all of 
which give corporates a voting role, really simply going in the 
direction that Davos-ists want things to go. They - the Davos-ists - 
know that it is tough to simply wipe out the few hundred years of 
history behind democracy, and the strength it therefore posses.. To 
them, these civil society proposals, where there is a lot of 
goodly-goody stuff, but the basic point is that corporates have policy 
votes, is just the thing to go for... Once there, they know how to make 
it entirely their show with some bones thrown occasionally here and 
there to those who need to be co-pted. A historic point like the present 
one requires a response that fits contextually, and nudge things in the 
right direction. Each of us has to convince ourselves whether our acts 
are contributing to the right direction or the wrong one.. And we have 
also to convince others and the world, as a group with privileged access 
to policy process, which we claim on behalf of the people of the world.

parminder



> In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media 
> telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long 
> history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to 
> corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent 
> outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties. 
> The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse 
> in some other countries.
>
> And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable 
> arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.
>
> The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating  as regards 
> nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that 
> should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business 
> interests from crowding the public out of the tent ".
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any 
> form of governance, highly corruptible .
>
> The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in 
> about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that 
> in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of 
> WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was 
> “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the 
> setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
> (ICANN)".
>
> It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was 
> retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a 
> central design element.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms 
> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>
>
> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
>
> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
>
> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
>
> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late,
> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full 
>> accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who 
>> equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow 
>> being "opposition" to those processes.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms 
>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>>> multistakeholderism)
>>
>> Thanks you for include the parenthetical.  To be honest that is my 
>> greater concerns.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Feb  9 04:20:06 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:20:06 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <EFB5AAE4F3DD4B3683BDD2F09E265422@Toshiba>

Hi Parminder,

I think we see the problem differently.

To me the central problem here is the power of corporations to influence and
dictate policy in their own interests. I have plenty of evidence that the
nation state system we call democracy as universally practiced AND
multistakeholderism are both highly susceptible to this power. So in this
respect neither solves my basic problem. And at this level there is not much
point in talking about what democracy should be or what multistakeholderism
should be - both are susceptible to this problem and unable to deal with it.

Tell me - if we abandon multistakeholderism, will the corporate dominance
problem disappear? Of course not. And if you all get up in your country 
tomorrow and vote in another government, will the problem disappear? Of 
course not.


I conclude that the real problem is not the systems of governance, but the 
power of corporations to overpower representative systems.

The most effective counters I know are in the form of social activism and
advocacy. In that respect, the most powerful thing civil society can do is
to speak and act forcefully with one voice against the major problems we
face. And in the Internet governance area, corporate dominance is very high
on my list. Along with unilateral governmental dominance in some areas.


I think we divert our energies if we attack multistakeholderism instead of 
corporate dominance. But equally, I think we must clearly point out the 
dangers of corporate dominance in a multistakeholder system.


Ian








-----Original Message----- 
From: parminder
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 7:06 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)


On Sunday 09 February 2014 12:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of
> multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real
> and present danger.
>
> But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we
> call democracy?

Ian

This is a highly dangerous statement to make... What we know as
democracy and call democracy is for us - the people - to claim.. Not to
call names, and throw away. And people have risen and often claimed it,
as even some recent events have shown, and more will come, with the
Internet no doubt playing a big role... To speak so loosely about
democracy - that it is the 'this bad system' or that, is as I said
dangerous, and basically giving the priceless human heritage of
democracy away. We have to be very careful to be talking about things
that are so high and valued as democracy.

So, I really do not understand what you mean to say about  'same
danger'... You cannot rise and claim corporatist MSism as you can claim
democracy. Is it a small difference. Recently, a group, less than a year
old, which was protesting corruption on the roads, and being openly
ridiculed as useless and powerless, took control of the government of
New Delhi by wining elections. This was done entirely through crowd
sourced money and volunteers.  Can you think of a similar process for
taking over Davos! But, if you are talking about just the global level
democracy or the absence of it, yes , lets talk about it. I am ready for
the most drastic proposal, as long as it does not involve giving
privileged positions to the already extra-ordinarily powerful global
corporations. Ian, I really mean it. Lets discuss global democracy. That
is the discussion to have.

But before that let us issue a clear statement that we are against what
is happening in the name of MSism, which is really WEF-ism or Davos-ism.
That we are against giving any special political privilege to global
corporates.  That we strongly condemn and disassociate from all those
who openly say (including on these lists) that google should vote at the
same level as a country government in global policy making. Lets get
together and say all this... And then also say what is wrong with the UN
and what we want changed. That is the discussion we need to have.

BTW, whenever some people, Wolfgang for instance, have sought that G 20
- which includes India - takes up a special role in global IG, I have
opposed it, This is where UN is more democratic than a Davos or G 20.
Therefore our critiques and positions should be context specific and
pragmatic, to push things in the right direction rather than the wrong
direction. That is our political responsibility. Simply put, going for
Davos kind of governance solutions - which, sorry to say, I think most
IG civil society is abetting - is the 'wrong direction' to push. UN
reform on the other hand is the 'right direction' to push. The choice,
as actually presented, I see is between the two. And as responsible
political actors we have to negotiate our way - however idealistic in
its final form - through the given landscape where are situated at the
moment, and taking stock of the forces that we can see and feel at work.

If you or someone else has a third directions, clearly different from
the two above, please mention that... I see MIlton's proposals, Jeremy's
MIC proposal, some proposals from Joana's organisation, etc, all of
which give corporates a voting role, really simply going in the
direction that Davos-ists want things to go. They - the Davos-ists -
know that it is tough to simply wipe out the few hundred years of
history behind democracy, and the strength it therefore posses.. To
them, these civil society proposals, where there is a lot of
goodly-goody stuff, but the basic point is that corporates have policy
votes, is just the thing to go for... Once there, they know how to make
it entirely their show with some bones thrown occasionally here and
there to those who need to be co-pted. A historic point like the present
one requires a response that fits contextually, and nudge things in the
right direction. Each of us has to convince ourselves whether our acts
are contributing to the right direction or the wrong one.. And we have
also to convince others and the world, as a group with privileged access
to policy process, which we claim on behalf of the people of the world.

parminder



> In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media
> telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long
> history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to
> corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent
> outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties.
> The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse
> in some other countries.
>
> And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable
> arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.
>
> The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating  as regards
> nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that
> should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business
> interests from crowding the public out of the tent ".
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any
> form of governance, highly corruptible .
>
> The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in
> about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that
> in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of
> WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was
> “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the
> setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN)".
>
> It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was
> retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a
> central design element.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>
>
> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
>
> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
>
> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
>
> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late,
> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full
>> accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who
>> equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow
>> being "opposition" to those processes.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>>> multistakeholderism)
>>
>> Thanks you for include the parenthetical.  To be honest that is my
>> greater concerns.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>







____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  9 06:04:29 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:34:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <EFB5AAE4F3DD4B3683BDD2F09E265422@Toshiba>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net> <EFB5AAE4F3DD4B3683BDD2F09E265422@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <1D86C8F3-10A0-4351-A431-C7DCF4AEC69A@hserus.net>

Attack it too much and you risk a constructive engagement with industry stakeholders. So please do be careful to attack dominance where it actually exist, rather than condemn corporations on general principles. I know you won't, Ian, but there are several people with rather less scruples.

--srs (iPad)

> On 09-Feb-2014, at 14:50, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> I think we see the problem differently.
> 
> To me the central problem here is the power of corporations to influence and
> dictate policy in their own interests. I have plenty of evidence that the
> nation state system we call democracy as universally practiced AND
> multistakeholderism are both highly susceptible to this power. So in this
> respect neither solves my basic problem. And at this level there is not much
> point in talking about what democracy should be or what multistakeholderism
> should be - both are susceptible to this problem and unable to deal with it.
> 
> Tell me - if we abandon multistakeholderism, will the corporate dominance
> problem disappear? Of course not. And if you all get up in your country tomorrow and vote in another government, will the problem disappear? Of course not.
> 
> 
> I conclude that the real problem is not the systems of governance, but the power of corporations to overpower representative systems.
> 
> The most effective counters I know are in the form of social activism and
> advocacy. In that respect, the most powerful thing civil society can do is
> to speak and act forcefully with one voice against the major problems we
> face. And in the Internet governance area, corporate dominance is very high
> on my list. Along with unilateral governmental dominance in some areas.
> 
> 
> I think we divert our energies if we attack multistakeholderism instead of corporate dominance. But equally, I think we must clearly point out the dangers of corporate dominance in a multistakeholder system.
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 7:06 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
> mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
> 
> 
>> On Sunday 09 February 2014 12:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of
>> multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real
>> and present danger.
>> 
>> But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we
>> call democracy?
> 
> Ian
> 
> This is a highly dangerous statement to make... What we know as
> democracy and call democracy is for us - the people - to claim.. Not to
> call names, and throw away. And people have risen and often claimed it,
> as even some recent events have shown, and more will come, with the
> Internet no doubt playing a big role... To speak so loosely about
> democracy - that it is the 'this bad system' or that, is as I said
> dangerous, and basically giving the priceless human heritage of
> democracy away. We have to be very careful to be talking about things
> that are so high and valued as democracy.
> 
> So, I really do not understand what you mean to say about  'same
> danger'... You cannot rise and claim corporatist MSism as you can claim
> democracy. Is it a small difference. Recently, a group, less than a year
> old, which was protesting corruption on the roads, and being openly
> ridiculed as useless and powerless, took control of the government of
> New Delhi by wining elections. This was done entirely through crowd
> sourced money and volunteers.  Can you think of a similar process for
> taking over Davos! But, if you are talking about just the global level
> democracy or the absence of it, yes , lets talk about it. I am ready for
> the most drastic proposal, as long as it does not involve giving
> privileged positions to the already extra-ordinarily powerful global
> corporations. Ian, I really mean it. Lets discuss global democracy. That
> is the discussion to have.
> 
> But before that let us issue a clear statement that we are against what
> is happening in the name of MSism, which is really WEF-ism or Davos-ism.
> That we are against giving any special political privilege to global
> corporates.  That we strongly condemn and disassociate from all those
> who openly say (including on these lists) that google should vote at the
> same level as a country government in global policy making. Lets get
> together and say all this... And then also say what is wrong with the UN
> and what we want changed. That is the discussion we need to have.
> 
> BTW, whenever some people, Wolfgang for instance, have sought that G 20
> - which includes India - takes up a special role in global IG, I have
> opposed it, This is where UN is more democratic than a Davos or G 20.
> Therefore our critiques and positions should be context specific and
> pragmatic, to push things in the right direction rather than the wrong
> direction. That is our political responsibility. Simply put, going for
> Davos kind of governance solutions - which, sorry to say, I think most
> IG civil society is abetting - is the 'wrong direction' to push. UN
> reform on the other hand is the 'right direction' to push. The choice,
> as actually presented, I see is between the two. And as responsible
> political actors we have to negotiate our way - however idealistic in
> its final form - through the given landscape where are situated at the
> moment, and taking stock of the forces that we can see and feel at work.
> 
> If you or someone else has a third directions, clearly different from
> the two above, please mention that... I see MIlton's proposals, Jeremy's
> MIC proposal, some proposals from Joana's organisation, etc, all of
> which give corporates a voting role, really simply going in the
> direction that Davos-ists want things to go. They - the Davos-ists -
> know that it is tough to simply wipe out the few hundred years of
> history behind democracy, and the strength it therefore posses.. To
> them, these civil society proposals, where there is a lot of
> goodly-goody stuff, but the basic point is that corporates have policy
> votes, is just the thing to go for... Once there, they know how to make
> it entirely their show with some bones thrown occasionally here and
> there to those who need to be co-pted. A historic point like the present
> one requires a response that fits contextually, and nudge things in the
> right direction. Each of us has to convince ourselves whether our acts
> are contributing to the right direction or the wrong one.. And we have
> also to convince others and the world, as a group with privileged access
> to policy process, which we claim on behalf of the people of the world.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
>> In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media
>> telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long
>> history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to
>> corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent
>> outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties.
>> The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse
>> in some other countries.
>> 
>> And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable
>> arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.
>> 
>> The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating  as regards
>> nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that
>> should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business
>> interests from crowding the public out of the tent ".
>> 
>> I couldn't agree more.
>> 
>> For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any
>> form of governance, highly corruptible .
>> 
>> The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in
>> about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that
>> in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of
>> WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was
>> “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the
>> setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>> (ICANN)".
>> 
>> It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was
>> retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a
>> central design element.
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>> 
>> 
>> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
>> 
>> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
>> 
>> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
>> 
>> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late,
>> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full
>>> accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who
>>> equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow
>>> being "opposition" to those processes.
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>>>> multistakeholderism)
>>> 
>>> Thanks you for include the parenthetical.  To be honest that is my
>>> greater concerns.
>>> 
>>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Sun Feb  9 08:41:41 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:41:41 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <EFB5AAE4F3DD4B3683BDD2F09E265422@Toshiba>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net> <EFB5AAE4F3DD4B3683BDD2F09E265422@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <52F78595.6010609@acm.org>

(giving up on the idea of not cc'ing)

On 09-Feb-14 04:20, Ian Peter wrote:
> both are susceptible to this problem and unable to deal with it.


It is the 'unable to deal with it that I' reject.

I think that within our countries for everything that has to do with 
human rights, we need to be in a constant struggle to improve our 
representative democracies. As, for example, I believe those of us in 
the US have a pervasive monitoring disaster we need to fix.

I also believe that within the governance of the Internet, and other 
essentially international phenomena, we need to be constantly improving 
and furthering the practice of multistakeholder governance.  And it is 
improvable, it just takes good will and the ability to work together to 
overcome our essential differences and improve our processes.

I see the multistakeholder models as the next steps in democracy - from 
representative democracy to a participatory democracy that includes 
representative democracies but adds to them.  It is still very new and 
improvable/destructible model.  That is one of the things we should be 
focused on, improving and protecting the model - from those who would 
corrupt it or/and destroy it. The model still breaks down on many 
occasions, and constantly needs work to maintain and improve.

Just as representative democracy itself still needs improvement in those 
countries where it exists, many countries still have a long way to go 
before representative democracy is even a consideration. Only a very few 
nations are already working on participatory democracy. Most forms of 
democracy everywhere are at best poor reflections of what they could be.

But instead of focusing on the work of improving multistakeholder 
governance, we are constantly having to defend it from being killed by 
its enemies from all sides.  If efforts to build genuinely 
multistakeholder governance of the Internet fail, we would be left with 
nothing but unfettered national control in some spots and unfettered 
corporate control in other spots, with a lots of revolving door money 
and power exchanges between the two.  I would see this as a tragedy, 
which we have to be in a constant struggle to avoid.

I think any work we do as a group should with the end in mind of 
improving the multistakeholder models, not destroying them.

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  Sun Feb  9 09:23:20 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 09:23:20 -0500
Subject: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
In-Reply-To: <CC764629-C4BE-4707-97C5-7275203DB6EC@hserus.net>
References: <01a201cf254b$2fd978b0$8f8c6a10$@gmail.com> <CC764629-C4BE-4707-97C5-7275203DB6EC@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <52F78F58.50806@acm.org>



On 08-Feb-14 23:08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> I would rather you specifically call for consensus

I thought only one of the coordinators could call consensus on this list.

Others of us can ask them to do a consensus call.  But when one of us 
non-cocos says 'I think there is consensus,' I tend to view it, at best, 
as a rhetorical flourish.

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Feb  9 09:34:22 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:34:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
In-Reply-To: <52F78F58.50806@acm.org>
References: <01a201cf254b$2fd978b0$8f8c6a10$@gmail.com> <CC764629-C4BE-4707-97C5-7275203DB6EC@hserus.net>
 <52F78F58.50806@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjbtY7io_J7N+789WCdNHn3Y5Kcipw+pP3YnNcWQ-CJNw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 08-Feb-14 23:08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>  I would rather you specifically call for consensus
>>
>
> I thought only one of the coordinators could call consensus on this list.
>
> Others of us can ask them to do a consensus call.  But when one of us
> non-cocos says 'I think there is consensus,' I tend to view it, at best, as
> a rhetorical flourish.
>
>

+1, + silence != assent or consensus


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/024a8ad5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nashton at consensus.pro  Sun Feb  9 11:48:00 2014
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 17:48:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <52F78595.6010609@acm.org>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net> <EFB5AAE4F3DD4B3683BDD2F09E265422@Toshiba> <52F78595.6010609@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CD9A5635-70AF-4837-A019-89AB7C0AC5DC@consensus.pro>

Giving up on this list. Just too much duplicate posting between BB, IGC, and /1net.

On 9 Feb 2014, at 14:41, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> (giving up on the idea of not cc'ing)

-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/b87b8693/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sun Feb  9 12:02:00 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:02:00 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <A79AEC82-6CAA-44F1-B1E8-DF3A36B12F32@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks for the link to a very interesting article.  I am new to this list, and trying to do my research on what is relevant to ICANN.  I am also trying to determine what global vision and strategy civil society has for what I regard as a growing dilemma, so any other links you have would be much appreciated.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-02-09, at 1:02 AM, parminder wrote:

> 
> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
> 
> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
> 
> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
> 
> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow being "opposition" to those processes.
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 
>>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>>> multistakeholderism)
>> 
>> Thanks you for include the parenthetical.  To be honest that is my greater concerns.
>> 
>> 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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun Feb  9 12:52:07 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:52:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <52F7C047.1030808@wzb.eu>



A
> So, I really do not understand what you mean to say about  'same
> danger'... You cannot rise and claim corporatist MSism as you can claim
> democracy. Is it a small difference. Recently, a group, less than a year
> old, which was protesting corruption on the roads, and being openly
> ridiculed as useless and powerless, took control of the government of
> New Delhi by wining elections. This was done entirely through crowd
> sourced money and volunteers.  Can you think of a similar process for
> taking over Davos!

Yes, I can think of an example. Perhaps you find this parochial but 
after World War II, the German government introduced a system of 
co-determination in the German coal and steel industry in order to 
democratize an industry that had played a crucial role during the Nazi 
period. This codetermination law gave unions seats on the boards of the 
big corporations. After some decades, however, one couldn't really 
distinguish the union reps any longer from the commercial board members. 
They were wearing the same suits, flying around in the same helicopters 
and the worker' voice in corporate politics seemed a faint echo of what 
it used to be in the 1950s.

I agree with Ian. What matters in the long run is less the form (public 
or private governance) but rather the actions and the public attention 
that hold public and private actors to account.

jeanette




But, if you are talking about just the global level
> democracy or the absence of it, yes , lets talk about it. I am ready for
> the most drastic proposal, as long as it does not involve giving
> privileged positions to the already extra-ordinarily powerful global
> corporations. Ian, I really mean it. Lets discuss global democracy. That
> is the discussion to have.
>
> But before that let us issue a clear statement that we are against what
> is happening in the name of MSism, which is really WEF-ism or Davos-ism.
> That we are against giving any special political privilege to global
> corporates.  That we strongly condemn and disassociate from all those
> who openly say (including on these lists) that google should vote at the
> same level as a country government in global policy making. Lets get
> together and say all this... And then also say what is wrong with the UN
> and what we want changed. That is the discussion we need to have.
>
> BTW, whenever some people, Wolfgang for instance, have sought that G 20
> - which includes India - takes up a special role in global IG, I have
> opposed it, This is where UN is more democratic than a Davos or G 20.
> Therefore our critiques and positions should be context specific and
> pragmatic, to push things in the right direction rather than the wrong
> direction. That is our political responsibility. Simply put, going for
> Davos kind of governance solutions - which, sorry to say, I think most
> IG civil society is abetting - is the 'wrong direction' to push. UN
> reform on the other hand is the 'right direction' to push. The choice,
> as actually presented, I see is between the two. And as responsible
> political actors we have to negotiate our way - however idealistic in
> its final form - through the given landscape where are situated at the
> moment, and taking stock of the forces that we can see and feel at work.
>
> If you or someone else has a third directions, clearly different from
> the two above, please mention that... I see MIlton's proposals, Jeremy's
> MIC proposal, some proposals from Joana's organisation, etc, all of
> which give corporates a voting role, really simply going in the
> direction that Davos-ists want things to go. They - the Davos-ists -
> know that it is tough to simply wipe out the few hundred years of
> history behind democracy, and the strength it therefore posses.. To
> them, these civil society proposals, where there is a lot of
> goodly-goody stuff, but the basic point is that corporates have policy
> votes, is just the thing to go for... Once there, they know how to make
> it entirely their show with some bones thrown occasionally here and
> there to those who need to be co-pted. A historic point like the present
> one requires a response that fits contextually, and nudge things in the
> right direction. Each of us has to convince ourselves whether our acts
> are contributing to the right direction or the wrong one.. And we have
> also to convince others and the world, as a group with privileged access
> to policy process, which we claim on behalf of the people of the world.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>> In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media
>> telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long
>> history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to
>> corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent
>> outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties.
>> The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse
>> in some other countries.
>>
>> And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable
>> arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.
>>
>> The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating  as regards
>> nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that
>> should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business
>> interests from crowding the public out of the tent ".
>>
>> I couldn't agree more.
>>
>> For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any
>> form of governance, highly corruptible .
>>
>> The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in
>> about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that
>> in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of
>> WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was
>> “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the
>> setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>> (ICANN)".
>>
>> It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was
>> retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a
>> central design element.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>
>>
>> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
>>
>> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
>>
>> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
>>
>> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late,
>> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full
>>> accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who
>>> equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow
>>> being "opposition" to those processes.
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM
>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
>>> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to
>>>> multistakeholderism)
>>>
>>> Thanks you for include the parenthetical.  To be honest that is my
>>> greater concerns.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Sun Feb  9 14:08:12 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:08:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was
 Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
	<20140207150553.775173a6@quill>
	<CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <20140209200812.40d02420@quill>

Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this

I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly
better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have
considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't
necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get
posted on the IGC and BestBits lists.

Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov

Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to
address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms
against capture and other forms of undue influence by special
interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related
discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough
crossposting problem) already.

Greetings,
Norbert





>   On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
>     I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
>     the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly
> take these realities of particular interests (which are often in
> conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
> 
> 
>     Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>     > As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning
>     > Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I’m
>     > struck by one overwhelming observation…
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with
>     > respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions)
>     > are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors
>     > (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and
>     > the well-being of the Internet.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance
>     > structure and that proposal for the “management of decision
>     > making through MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted
>     > and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there
>     > are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely
>     > unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
>     > ensure the dominance of their own
>     > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever
>     > emerges from whatever process.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
>     > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures
>     > can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail…
>     > that these processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what
>     > are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that
>     > “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are
>     > promoting.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
>     > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be
>     > impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and
>     > the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the
>     > responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to
>     > support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional )
>     > interests and what the significance of this observation has to
>     > be for these discussions and their outputs.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple
>     > common sense.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been
>     > telling us?
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > M
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja
>     > Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
>     > To: Anne Jellema
>     > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG);
>     > genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org;
>     > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive
>     > proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Dear all,
>     >
>     > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
>     > comments below:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org>
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     > /SNIP/
>     >
>     > If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to
>     > require some kind of global public action, then in the spirit
>     > of form following function, maybe the rather daunting
>     > discussion on the best institutional model(s) will become
>     > easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can
>     > think harder about viable routes for an international body or
>     > forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for
>     > different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and
>     > setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
>     > applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la
>     > ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)?
>     > Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an
>     > enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key
>     > internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination
>     > of the above? Or none of the above?!
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
>     > decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because
>     > it allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on
>     > goals (see our proposal outlined here:
>     > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
>     > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
>     > It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately
>     > address all issues, and some issues might even require a
>     > variety of organisations/institutions to lead a process
>     > together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such an
>     > approach also has the advantage of making it possible to
>     > already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on the
>     > process, without needing to wait for agreement on the
>     > one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
>     > issues for all time to come.
>     >
>     > Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia
>     > and Ian expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape
>     > processes in each case in such a way that the shifting and
>     > changing power relations among different groups can be taken
>     > into account and whatever process is decided on provides as
>     > level a playing field as possible for the different groups that
>     > have a stake in that particular issue.
>     >
>     > Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked
>     > earlier, and that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us
>     > present in the meeting that this document reports on thought
>     > that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be making any
>     > substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
>     > agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a
>     > particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests
>     > that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
>     > process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still
>     > up to that institution to accept or reject that request. This
>     > is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can
>     > only request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
>     >
>     > Best,
>     > Anja
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     > From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>     > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
>     > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
>     > - IG governance
>     > To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
>     > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>     >
>     >
>     > Hi Andrew and all,
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > After reading the document I was willing to send a more
>     > carefully written comment, but I believe it is better to share
>     > thoughts informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the
>     > chaotic message.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You
>     > managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide both an
>     > overview of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the
>     > group who analyzed them (which are also useful btw). Some
>     > remarks I would initially have are the following.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned
>     > imbalances of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other
>     > similar things as "cases for governance reform". I think that
>     > one conclusion from that is that although we support the idea
>     > of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived"
>     > and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to
>     > emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
>     > recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united
>     > around MS all along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have
>     > been pointing out to these imbalances for a long time, so in
>     > order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion
>     > should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
>     > identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will
>     > assume the first option is correct...
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed
>     > governance" that you mapped overlook some important points. If
>     > MIPC or MIPOC  produce recommendations and send them to other
>     > organizations:
>     >
>     > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
>     >
>     > b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's
>     > advice? If there is no weight, would we be giving an additional
>     > incentive to, for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the
>     > Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the subject
>     > would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does
>     > this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
>     > international regimes?
>     >
>     > c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back
>     > to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
>     >
>     > d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
>     > improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont
>     > know if there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to
>     > continue the forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
>     >
>     > e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is
>     > little chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes
>     > without a very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who
>     > understand of methodologies to deal with large groups. Those
>     > who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I did,
>     > that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN.
>     > The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the
>     > technical community were alligned against UN public funding,
>     > taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of
>     > improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
>     > funding to the IGF?
>     >
>     > f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was
>     > not sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the
>     > frailty of the IGF and the fact that outcomes from the
>     > coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I
>     > would look into that more carefully
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
>     > Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less
>     > clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more
>     > opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in
>     > mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument
>     > that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
>     > without power and resources.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
>     > possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so
>     > maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal
>     > with the diversity of internet issues could be more carefully
>     > explained.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
>     > hoping we can continue the discussions.
>     >
>     > Thanks again for the good start
>     >
>     > Marília
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Cheers
>     >
>     > Anne
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin
>     > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a
>     > clear, targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society
>     > agenda going forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care
>     > what what the specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the
>     > timeline is excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is
>     > limited, and if want to take away something substantive from
>     > Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda
>     > should be, or should have been different. Brazil is a unique
>     > opportunity, and it will be shame if it goes to waste because
>     > civil society focused more on process and consensus than on
>     > extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
>     > represents.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > —Mike
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
> 
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
>   ____________________________________________________________
>   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>   To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  9 15:39:10 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 21:39:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <52F44D31.4000204@acm.org>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net>
	<CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org>
	<52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
	<52F44D31.4000204@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I don't think IGC has a definition of off-topic.

The IGC Charter states:

"""
Appropriate messages to an IGC list contribute to the objectives and
tasks of the IGC, particularly:

* To inform civil society and other progressive groups or actors on
  significant developments impacting on Internet governance policies.
* To anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of
  Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a
  manner that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC
* To develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance
  policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for
  creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals
  for such positions.
"""

In my view, a report about the US being significantly *perceived* as a
great “threat to peace” informs on “significant developments impacting
on Internet governance policies”. Perceptions drive policies.

By the way, postings which criticize a specific previous posting for
allegedly having been off-topic will usually not “contribute to the
objectives and tasks of the IGC”. This tends to render the criticism
off-topic regardless of how one sees the original posting that is being
criticized.

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  Sun Feb  9 17:16:40 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 22:16:40 -0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>

I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to support its application in the concrete; talking about the application of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current CS activities and outputs.

 

Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet public policy space.

 

Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed.

 

It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at least a certain degree of internal transparency.

 

If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion.

 

M  

 

From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 7:50 AM
To: genekimmelman at gmail.com; gurstein at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net

 

Agree with Gene. 1net is an experiment we can abandon at any time if it does not become productive. So no I do not support the sort of statement suggested below.

 

Which is not to rule out a consensus document of some sort in the future addressing accountability and transparency issues.

 

From: genekimmelman at gmail.com 

Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 3:18 PM

To: gurstein at gmail.com ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 

Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net

 

With all due respect,  making 1net the focus of concern strikes me as a distraction from more important substantive issues. We need the Brazil conference ( not 1net) to be inclusive,  open and address civil society priorities. 


-------- Original message --------
From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Date: 02/08/2014 10:58 PM (GMT-05:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net 



Colleagues,

 

As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following:

 

Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call?

 

Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call.

 

Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails.

 

M

 

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM
To: 'Anne Jellema'
Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org)
Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others…

 

My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process.

 

By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting  of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available.

 

Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format…

 

Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example….

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]-->Where did 1Net come from?  Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.)

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these?  Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions?  What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions.

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.       <!--[endif]-->Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net.  Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself.

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.       <!--[endif]-->Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. .  Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? 

 

(Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability.  Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.) 

 

So why does this matter?

 

Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted.  And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this

The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website <http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/framing-argument> )

 

and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument <http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm>  by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 

 

1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums.

 

This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?).  

 

I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made.

 

I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available?  If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes.

 

In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused.

 

Mike

 

 

From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending?

Best

Anne

On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one overwhelming observation… 

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

  _____  

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/c95c02b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From toml at communisphere.com  Sun Feb  9 17:32:18 2014
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:32:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52F801F2.9090403@communisphere.com>

+1

On 2/9/2014 5:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> terposed and interposed itself between “CS” and the Brazil meeting, 
> make transparent its decision making processes including in the 
> crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as 
> to inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute minimum that would 
> be expected from any public body or agency. And certainly it would 
> appear that many of the folks in this discussion not only are seeing 
> MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, they are 
> seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet public policy space.
>
> Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two 
> required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources 
> and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to 
> assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture 
> have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been 
> provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those 
> opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140209/0b071796/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Sun Feb  9 18:16:02 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:16:02 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
In-Reply-To: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com>

Michael,

We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago.   I think that we can count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this conversation.

First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net, although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that provided people to the 1net steering committee.  I admit that I don't understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we differ as it doesn’t bother me.  Here is why.

Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder groups, but not between them.  Ultimately, this is not productive; it results in multiple echo chambers  — the image that comes to mind is of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted.  In one form or another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened.  We should thank its originators.  It is a meeting place, with no content except that which we contribute to it.

Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture?  You express concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the on-going discussion.”  I understand your concern, but each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there were any such concerns, would they not be reported out?  Can we not let the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern?

Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of  ideas to the Brazil meeting.  I think that is not correct.  Brazil apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting, and it chose 1net.  I suspect that in part it did to want to be the arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of others.  I don’t blame them; they want to work for solutions, not solve representational disputes.

IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they must meet.  I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG discussion.  Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through 1net, by the beginning of March.  1net is not in any way transmitting or filtering this input (nor should it).

All stakeholder groups are in this together.  We want an Internet that is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or outright capture by any sectoral interest.  We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable collations, and we won’t get those solutions unless we come up with good ideas and discuss/debate them.  Negativity really does’;t help.  We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.  Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas?

George 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to support its application in the concrete; talking about the application of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current CS activities and outputs.
>  
> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet public policy space.
>  
> Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed.
>  
> It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at least a certain degree of internal transparency.
>  
> If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion.
>  
> M  
>  

<<trimmed>>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  9 18:52:58 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 17:52:58 -0600
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net>
 <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org>
 <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
 <52F44D31.4000204@acm.org>
 <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
Message-ID: <20140209235258.GI657@hserus.net>

That is rule lawyering i am afraid.

The xonnection is tangential at best as others havr pointed out here,and by
the time such posts become nearly the majority of one's 'contributions' to
the list,with little or no additional commentary on where or why igov is
affected, then you tend to figure out the on or off topicness, or more
importantly, the produxtivity of continuing to allow the list to degenerate
into a single point agenda of US bashing.

Norbert Bollow [09/02/14 21:39 +0100]:
>Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think IGC has a definition of off-topic.
>
>The IGC Charter states:
>
>"""
>Appropriate messages to an IGC list contribute to the objectives and
>tasks of the IGC, particularly:
>
>* To inform civil society and other progressive groups or actors on
>  significant developments impacting on Internet governance policies.
>* To anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of
>  Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a
>  manner that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC
>* To develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance
>  policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for
>  creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals
>  for such positions.
>"""
>
>In my view, a report about the US being significantly *perceived* as a
>great “threat to peace” informs on “significant developments impacting
>on Internet governance policies”. Perceptions drive policies.
>
>By the way, postings which criticize a specific previous posting for
>allegedly having been off-topic will usually not “contribute to the
>objectives and tasks of the IGC”. This tends to render the criticism
>off-topic regardless of how one sees the original posting that is being
>criticized.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>

>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Feb  9 18:56:41 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 17:56:41 -0600
Subject: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
In-Reply-To: <52F78F58.50806@acm.org>
References: <01a201cf254b$2fd978b0$8f8c6a10$@gmail.com>
 <CC764629-C4BE-4707-97C5-7275203DB6EC@hserus.net>
 <52F78F58.50806@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20140209235641.GJ657@hserus.net>

+1

Avri Doria [09/02/14 09:23 -0500]:
>
>
>On 08-Feb-14 23:08, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>>I would rather you specifically call for consensus
>
>I thought only one of the coordinators could call consensus on this list.
>
>Others of us can ask them to do a consensus call.  But when one of us 
>non-cocos says 'I think there is consensus,' I tend to view it, at 
>best, as a rhetorical flourish.
>
>avri
>

>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Feb  9 19:01:39 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:01:39 -0600
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <52F801F2.9090403@communisphere.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>
 <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>
 <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
 <52F801F2.9090403@communisphere.com>
Message-ID: <20140210000139.GK657@hserus.net>

a public and transparent note sure, but i must say i am not surprised in
their weighing in on a thread that presupposes teir opacity and as it were,
seeks to put them on a sort of trial by mailing list.

Thomas Lowenhaupt [09/02/14 17:32 -0500]:
>+1
>
>On 2/9/2014 5:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>
>>terposed and interposed itself between “CS” and the Brazil meeting, 
>>make transparent its decision making processes including in the 
>>crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions 
>>as to inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute minimum that 
>>would be expected from any public body or agency. And certainly it 
>>would appear that many of the folks in this discussion not only are 
>>seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, 
>>they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet 
>>public policy space.
>>
>>Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or 
>>two required to provide a public accounting of their actions, 
>>resources and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the 
>>air and to assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or 
>>other capture have been involved or are inserted into the 
>>structures that have been provided for framing the on-going 
>>discussion. Or perhaps are those opposing this absolutely minimum 
>>measure afraid of what might be revealed.
>>
>

>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Feb  9 23:01:17 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 04:01:17 -0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net
In-Reply-To: <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com>

Tks George,

 

Responses inline

 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM
To: gurstein michael
Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com; Civil IGC Society Internet
Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net

 

Michael,

 

We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken introduced
us virtually at least 10 years ago.   I think that we can count on an
adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this conversation.

[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never put his
very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to Telecom
regulatory matters to work in these areas :) 

 

First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net, although I
was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that provided people to
the 1net steering committee.  I admit that I don't understand the exact
mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we differ as it doesn't bother
me.  Here is why.

[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered by" not
understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the non-acceptance that
we should and have a right to knowledge/understanding about that process..
1Net is important and potentially (based on the aspirations that some
including yourself below have expressed for it), very important, and thus
there is a requirement for full transparency in this and other areas

 

Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder
groups, but not between them.  Ultimately, this is not productive; it
results in multiple echo chambers  - the image that comes to mind is of
different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in London,
all preaching to the (semi-) converted.  In one form or another, the 1net
list had to happen and should have happened.  We should thank its
originators.  It is a meeting place, with no content except that which we
contribute to it.

[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you.  But 1Net has
demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a "meeting
place". 

                1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for
it's Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by
what process and who had input into this process and by what authorization
did they act in this way--without attributing any bias or other criticism do
you see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to
ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into
this process of inclusion/exclusion

                2.   it designated certain participants as interlocutors for
it's selection of representation on various of its Committees etc.
interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by what
process and who had input into this process and by what authorization did
they act in this way--again without attributing any bias or other criticism
do you  see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to
ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into
this process of inclusion/exclusion

                3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of
discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without
attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other criticism do
you see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to
ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into
this process

                4. it expended resources in designing and producing  a set
of Forums and an associated website--who provided and directed those
resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or
interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be
publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
deliberately or otherwise built into this process

 

Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture?  You express
concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved
or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the
on-going discussion."  I understand your concern, but each stakeholder group
is represented o that committee, and if there were any such concerns, would
they not be reported out?  Can we not let the process continue and extract
value from it, and let the presence of representatives on the committee deal
with such a concern?

[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the information
requested above was available either internally or externally we have no
evidence on the basis of which to make judgments as to whether it is
reasonable to let the process continue and extract value from it" and given
the lack of information concerning the #1 above we again do not have
sufficient information to " let the presence of representatives on the
committee deal with such a concern", particularly since concerns have been
expressed with respect to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent
selection processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups
represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector).

 

Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of  ideas
to the Brazil meeting.  I think that is not correct.  Brazil apparently
wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting, and it chose 1net.
I suspect that in part it did to want to be the arbiter of independent
streams of information and requests form multiple groups, some of which were
contesting the legitimacy of others.  I don't blame them; they want to work
for solutions, not solve representational disputes.

[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was both
"interposed" and "interposed itself" and my concern and desire for
information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net "interposed
itself" and thus information concerning the background to 1Net should be
made available.

 

IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the
Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems
accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they must
meet.  

[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do "define
existing problems accurately" and in a manner that is not otherwise
structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by overt action) or
implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate, discussion and output
as for example, through the exclusion of certain voices or the undue
promotion of other voices; or through the introduction of latent
"filtering/framing" of discussion as for example, in the manner in which
discussion is "Summarized" or in how discussion is channeled into certain
directions through the design of a pattern of "Forums"). Surely you agree
that full disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability
governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about such
possible bias.

 

I don't see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas
emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to
discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG
discussion.  

[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above

 

Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any kind
as input to its conference, directly without passing through 1net, by the
beginning of March.  1net is not in any way transmitting or filtering this
input (nor should it).

[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a substantive and
significant role as "Summarizing" and "framing through Forums" certain
inputs into this process and it is in this that I am suggesting the
requirement  for transparency 

 

All stakeholder groups are in this together.  We want an Internet that is
stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or outright
capture by any sectoral interest.  

[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the process to
ensure that there is full transparency and accountability within stakeholder
groups (which was not evident within the CS stakeholder group for example)
and within the stakeholder collaboration processes (such as 1Net)
themselves. 

 

As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups start off
in the process with more influence and resources than others and thus (to go
back to Anne's question where all of this started) among the greatest tools
to ensure against such "capture by any sectoral interest" is full
transparency and accountability through appropriate and inclusive
structures-which is what I would think we would all be striving for. 

 

We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable
collations, and we won't get those solutions unless we come up with good
ideas and discuss/debate them.  

[MG>] agreed

 

Negativity really does';t help.  

[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for reasonable
disclosure/transparency.  This only leads to further distrust and an
undermining of these necessary processes that you are pointing to.

 

We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.  Can't we
just use it and concentrate upon ideas?

[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary to ensure
that it is not, as the "agora*"  started out i.e. a place where "free-born
male land-owners who were citizens would gather in the agora for military
duty or to hear statements of the ruling king or council" but rather is,  as
it later became, "a marketplace where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell
their goods (MG: "and ideas") and the best way to ensure that the agora is
the latter and not the former,  is full transparency as to processes and
inputs. 

 

And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you who is
as you say " not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net" and not
from 1Net itself, who could as I've said repeatedly end this discussion once
and for all by spending no more than one or two hours in responding to a set
of questions which any "public" and publically accountable process would
find completely normal and acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my
auditor's hat) suggests that perhaps there is something to hide which the
responsible parties are unwilling to disclose.

 

Mike

 

George

 

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

 

> I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one hand
extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while declaiming on
the possibility of "capture", and then refusing to support its application
in the concrete; talking about the application of Transparency to
multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and not supporting it when
it is suggested for an immediate and significant application and one
moreover which is impacting on current CS activities and outputs.

>  

> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation
that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil
meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the
crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to
inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute minimum that would be
expected from any public body or agency. And certainly it would appear that
many of the folks in this discussion not only are seeing MS structures such
as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, they are seeing them as central
public bodies in the Internet public policy space.

>  

> Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two
required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources and
procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to assure all
and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved
or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the
on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those opposing this absolutely minimum
measure afraid of what might be revealed.

>  

> It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering
Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for example, by
giving instances of how they were consulted in the contracting of the
"Summary" and the design of the "Forums" and the "Forums website". This
would go some way in providing assurance of at least a certain degree of
internal transparency.

>  

> If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely resisted
by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is there that there
will be any effective oversight or overwhelming insistence on Transparency
and Accountability for the more elaborate and complex MS processes which are
so widely and loudly being touted by one and all and including so many
involved in this discussion.

>  

> M  

>  

 

<<trimmed>>

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/9813818c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dave at difference.com.au  Mon Feb 10 01:53:32 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:53:32 +0800
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>


On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. 

	I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy outcomes of that, and future, events. 
	Regards

		David

	
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/87f4d359/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/87f4d359/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dave at difference.com.au  Mon Feb 10 02:06:12 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:06:12 +0800
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com> <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org> <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net> <52F44D31.4000204@acm.org> <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
Message-ID: <C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au>

Norbert, you seem to be arguing that the IGC list has a definition of off-topic, but that the list itself should have no role in enforcing or discussing the application of that rule, as any discussion of its potential application is subject to the rule itself? Am I misinterpreting your last paragraph there?

Not quite Catch 22, but a similar form of rule reflexivity that deserves its own number perhaps. 
Cheers

David

On 10 Feb 2014, at 4:39 am, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> I don't think IGC has a definition of off-topic.
> 
> The IGC Charter states:
> 
> """
> Appropriate messages to an IGC list contribute to the objectives and
> tasks of the IGC, particularly:
> 
> * To inform civil society and other progressive groups or actors on
>  significant developments impacting on Internet governance policies.
> * To anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of
>  Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a
>  manner that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC
> * To develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance
>  policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for
>  creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals
>  for such positions.
> """
> 
> In my view, a report about the US being significantly *perceived* as a
> great “threat to peace” informs on “significant developments impacting
> on Internet governance policies”. Perceptions drive policies.
> 
> By the way, postings which criticize a specific previous posting for
> allegedly having been off-topic will usually not “contribute to the
> objectives and tasks of the IGC”. This tends to render the criticism
> off-topic regardless of how one sees the original posting that is being
> criticized.
> 
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/6ee03fe9/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 10 02:16:09 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:46:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <52F87CB9.1080309@itforchange.net>


On Monday 10 February 2014 12:23 PM, David Cake wrote:
>
> On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a 
>> formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and 
>> the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes 
>> including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures 
>> and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions.
>
> I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and 
> accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a 
> positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much 
> larger amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which 
> at this point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative 
> issues to do with a single event, rather than focussing on the 
> substantive policy outcomes of that, and future, events.

This is untrue on both counts. The fact being as below;

(1) The primary purpose of the 1Net is to strongly influence (if not 
actually write) the outcomes of the Brazil meeting (something I have 
been insisting since the very beginning)

(2) The serious 1Net-ers want it to be a standing multistakeholder 
mechanism. So many have explicitly said so on so many lists.

I think one-sided naivete is not the best response for civil society to 
take to all this, which unfortunately seems to be the dominant response. 
(I say one-sided naivete becuase there is hardly any naivete when for 
instance a UN kind of process is involved.)

People in post colonial societies cannot but use colonial analogies to 
understand geo- political situations. The British set up an 
establishment in India 'merely' to facilitate its trade to 'the east'. 
They ended up ruling the country for more than a century. Apologies if 
the analogy is seen as 'too strong' - it is merely to underline the need 
for political foresight...

parminder





> Regards
>
> David
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/5e147067/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 03:21:37 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:21:37 -0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com>

A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be more
than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning of
1Net (certainly by myself). 

 

My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) in
arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward 1Net
to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful response.

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
1Net

 

 

On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that
was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil meeting,
make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial
areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions
and exclusions.  

 

            I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and
accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a
positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger
amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this
point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do
with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy
outcomes of that, and future, events. 

            Regards

 

                        David

 

            

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/7149a713/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Mon Feb 10 06:01:40 2014
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:01:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: UNGA resolution 68/167 on right to privacy in the
 digital age
Message-ID: <CF1E6F80.54DA1%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Dear all,

this resolution is finally available under:
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167.

Kind regards
Wolfgang Benedek






>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jovank at diplomacy.edu  Mon Feb 10 06:05:27 2014
From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:05:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: UNGA resolution 68/167 on right to privacy in
 the digital age
In-Reply-To: <CF1E6F80.54DA1%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CF1E6F80.54DA1%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <52F8B277.20006@diplomacy.edu>

Thank you Woflgang. We plan to have a simulation exercise 'dissection of 
the UN GA resoluton' with our students, but I could not find travaux 
préparatoire. Do you have any useful link on the evolution of various 
drafts and proposals?

Regards, Jovan

*
*
On 2/10/14 12:01 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> this resolution is finally available under:
> http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167.
>
> Kind regards
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

*Jovan Kurbalija, PhD*

Director, DiploFoundation

Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva*|***Switzerland

*Tel.*+41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.*+41 (0) 797884226

*Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu*| **Twitter:*@jovankurbalija

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/e23a4812/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Feb 10 06:22:54 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:22:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net>
	<CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org>
	<52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
	<52F44D31.4000204@acm.org>
	<20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
	<C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <20140210122254.01a4c86e@quill>

David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> Norbert, you seem to be arguing that the IGC list has a definition of
> off-topic, but that the list itself should have no role in enforcing
> or discussing the application of that rule, as any discussion of its
> potential application is subject to the rule itself?

There is a tendency on this list for people who express certain kinds of
viewpoints to get shouted down. "Off-topic" is one of the complaints
that can be used for that purpose. This kind of social process is part
of what has created such an often-hostile environment on this list that
many people are very reluctant or even afraid of posting anything on
this list. I say this on the basis of having tried, during the Bali
IGF, to speak in person with as many as I could of the IGC's “silent
majority”.

The IGC charter puts enforcing the posting rules firmly and squarely
into the hands of the elected coordinators, and when some other members
of the list try to take things into their own hands by posting
complaints about certain postings being off-topic, that kind of action
is IMO itself a clear violation of the posting rules. (On the other
hand, I'd say that discussing the posting rules, their interpretation,
or proposals to change them, is within the range of allowed topics
for this list... although not necessarily a very fruitful activity.)

> Not quite Catch 22, but a similar form of rule reflexivity that
> deserves its own number perhaps.

One possible approach to address this issue is to have a separate list
on which such meta-discussions are explicitly on-topic. That will
minimize the degree to which such meta-discussions disrupt the
substantive discussions which the main list was created for.

Greetings,
Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/3b858034/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 10 06:48:32 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:48:32 +1200
Subject: [governance] Re: UNGA resolution 68/167 on right to privacy in
 the digital age
In-Reply-To: <CF1E6F80.54DA1%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CF1E6F80.54DA1%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <43077854-E2F7-4721-B368-E93F565EF07F@gmail.com>

Many thanks Wolfgang.

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:01 PM, "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> this resolution is finally available under:
> http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167.
> 
> Kind regards
> Wolfgang Benedek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 07:40:55 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:40:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <20140210122254.01a4c86e@quill>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org> <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
 <52F44D31.4000204@acm.org> <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
 <C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au> <20140210122254.01a4c86e@quill>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjYtoRaUkxyPi7ks-jy9=EGq-O02Qz5hS_A31rtVXR5nw@mail.gmail.com>

Norbert,


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Norbert, you seem to be arguing that the IGC list has a definition of
> > off-topic, but that the list itself should have no role in enforcing
> > or discussing the application of that rule, as any discussion of its
> > potential application is subject to the rule itself?
>
> There is a tendency on this list for people who express certain kinds of
> viewpoints to get shouted down. "Off-topic" is one of the complaints
> that can be used for that purpose. This kind of social process is part
> of what has created such an often-hostile environment on this list that
> many people are very reluctant or even afraid of posting anything on
> this list. I say this on the basis of having tried, during the Bali
> IGF, to speak in person with as many as I could of the IGC's "silent
> majority".
>
> The IGC charter puts enforcing the posting rules firmly and squarely
> into the hands of the elected coordinators, and when some other members
> of the list try to take things into their own hands by posting
> complaints about certain postings being off-topic, that kind of action
> is IMO itself a clear violation of the posting rules.



Which rules exactly?

I've been on uncountable Internet policy lists for ~20 years.  I've never
been on a list where subscribers were not allowed to complain about
Off-Topic posts.


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/07a32c7d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Mon Feb 10 07:43:43 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:43:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com> <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org> <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net> <52F44D31.4000204@acm.org> <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill> <C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <52F8C97F.4030907@acm.org>

Hi,

> Appropriate messages to an IGC list contribute to the objectives and
>> tasks of the IGC, particularly:

I see this as more of a guideline.

'Appropriate' is a fuzzy category, is very subjective and leaves lots of
room for Postel's Law* to be applied voluntarily.

'Appropriate' is also context dependent.

For example: If one of us breaks her legs and the list members find out,
people may offer sympathy and best wishes.  That has nothing to do with
tasks of the IGC, yet collegiality aspect of such best wish seem 
appropriate.

Likewise congratulations for getting appointed to some special honor,
like a high level committee or being elected as the Co-Cordinators of
the IGC.

'Contributes' is another fuzzy category.  All sorts of non-Ig issue
discussion might contribute.  For example someone could offer a
discussion of the sustainability work done in some other field that has
nothing to do with Ig, but someone might just want to draw a parallel.

'Particularly' as a header on a list is an indication that the
following list is more of an inter alia (including but not limited to)
type of list, but one where special status is attributed to the examples
listed.

On 10-Feb-14 02:06, David Cake wrote:

> Not quite Catch 22, but a similar form of rule reflexivity that
> deserves its own number perhaps.

If you view these as guidelines not rules, they are not a catch but
complementary. And the list members can indeed point put that perhaps
something is inappropriate for the list.  Sometime a person will accept
that graciously, or maybe a bit grumpily.  Sometime the person will not
accept guidance fro her listmate and will behave inappropriately; when
that happens we have the Co-Cos to gently shepherd us back to an
appropriate path.

Or at least that is how I interpret it.

avri

* Postel's Law: "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you
accept from others"

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 08:31:44 2014
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:31:44 +0900
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <20140210122254.01a4c86e@quill>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org> <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
 <52F44D31.4000204@acm.org> <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
 <C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au> <20140210122254.01a4c86e@quill>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=EqX88fDQWJikyk8Nefvt26S=qHHCLpkm7SMH4fTOe9A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,


> There is a tendency on this list for people who express certain kinds of
> viewpoints to get shouted down. "Off-topic" is one of the complaints
> that can be used for that purpose. This kind of social process is part
> of what has created such an often-hostile environment on this list that
> many people are very reluctant or even afraid of posting anything on
> this list. I say this on the basis of having tried, during the Bali
> IGF, to speak in person with as many as I could of the IGC's “silent
> majority”.


> The IGC charter puts enforcing the posting rules firmly and squarely
> into the hands of the elected coordinators, and when some other members
> of the list try to take things into their own hands by posting
> complaints about certain postings being off-topic, that kind of action
> is IMO itself a clear violation of the posting rules. (On the other
> hand, I'd say that discussing the posting rules, their interpretation,
> or proposals to change them, is within the range of allowed topics
> for this list... although not necessarily a very fruitful activity.)
>

but you are not coordinator anymore to make any decision, you are now among
other mortals like us :). Ironically  are not you describing above what you
are doing exactly here and "taking things in your own hands"?

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/19a3d178/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From toml at communisphere.com  Mon Feb 10 10:15:57 2014
From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:15:57 -0500
Subject: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net - We are Caesar
 Wife
In-Reply-To: <055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com> <055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52F8ED2D.3010808@communisphere.com>

Dear Civil Society Colleagues,

The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who pepper 
the various governance lists and attend the conferences as 
representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above 
suspicion. We are Caesars wife 
<http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Caesar%27s+wife+must+be+above+suspicion>.

A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent activities 
involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been resisted is 
confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not, our good work 
will take place under not in a cloud.

Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the 
billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past our 
heritage.

Sincerely,

Thomas Lowenhaupt


On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> Tks George,
>
> Responses inline
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM
> To: gurstein michael
> Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com; Civil IGC Society Internet 
> Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 
> 1Net
>
> Michael,
>
> We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken 
> introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago.   I think that we can 
> count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this 
> conversation.
>
> */[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never 
> put his very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to 
> Telecom regulatory matters to work in these areas :) /*
>
> First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net, 
> although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that 
> provided people to the 1net steering committee.  I admit that I don't 
> understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we 
> differ as it doesn’t bother me.  Here is why.
>
> */[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered 
> by" not understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the 
> non-acceptance that we should and have a right to 
> knowledge/understanding about that process.. 1Net is important and 
> potentially (based on the aspirations that some including yourself 
> below have expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a 
> requirement for full transparency in this and other areas/*
>
> Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder 
> groups, but not between them. Ultimately, this is not productive; it 
> results in multiple echo chambers  — the image that comes to mind is 
> of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in 
> London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted.  In one form or 
> another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened.  We 
> should thank its originators.  It is a meeting place, with no content 
> except that which we contribute to it.
>
> */[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you. But 1Net 
> has demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a 
> "meeting place". /*
>
> */1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's 
> Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by 
> what process and who had input into this process and by what 
> authorization did they act in this way--without attributing any bias 
> or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be 
> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was 
> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*
>
> */2.   it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's 
> selection of representation on various of its Committees etc. 
> interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by 
> what process and who had input into this process and by what 
> authorization did they act in this way--again without attributing any 
> bias or other criticism do you  see any reason why this should not be 
> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was 
> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*
>
> */3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of 
> discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without 
> attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other 
> criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly 
> presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately 
> or otherwise built into this process/*
>
> */4. it expended resources in designing and producing  a set of Forums 
> and an associated website--who provided and directed those 
> resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or 
> interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should 
> not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias 
> was deliberately or otherwise built into this process/*
>
> Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture?  You express 
> concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been 
> involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided 
> for framing the on-going discussion.”  I understand your concern, but 
> each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there 
> were any such concerns, would they not be reported out? Can we not let 
> the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence 
> of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern?
>
> */[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the 
> information requested above was available either internally or 
> externally we have no evidence on the basis of which to make judgments 
> as to whether it is reasonable to let the process continue and extract 
> value from it" and given the lack of information concerning the #1 
> above we again do not have sufficient information to " let the 
> presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a 
> concern", particularly since concerns have been expressed with respect 
> to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent selection 
> processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups 
> represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector)./*
>
> Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of  
> ideas to the Brazil meeting.  I think that is not correct.  Brazil 
> apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting, 
> and it chose 1net.  I suspect that in part it did to want to be the 
> arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form 
> multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of 
> others.  I don’t blame them; they want to work for solutions, not 
> solve representational disputes.
>
> */[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was 
> both “interposed” and ”interposed itself” and my concern and desire 
> for information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net 
> "interposed itself" and thus information concerning the background to 
> 1Net should be made available./*
>
> IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the 
> Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems 
> accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they 
> must meet.
>
> */[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do 
> "define existing problems _accurately_" and in a manner that is not 
> otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by 
> overt action) or implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate, 
> discussion and output as for example, through the exclusion of certain 
> voices or the undue promotion of other voices; or through the 
> introduction of latent “filtering/framing” of discussion as for 
> example, in the manner in which discussion is “Summarized” or in how 
> discussion is channeled into certain directions through the design of 
> a pattern of “Forums”). Surely you agree that full 
> disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability 
> governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about 
> such possible bias./*
>
> I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas 
> emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to 
> discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG 
> discussion.
>
> */[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above/*
>
> *//*
>
> Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any 
> kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through 
> 1net, by the beginning of March.  1net is not in any way transmitting 
> or filtering this input (nor should it).
>
> */[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a 
> substantive and significant role as “Summarizing” and “framing through 
> Forums” certain inputs into this process and it is in this that I am 
> suggesting the requirement  for transparency /*
>
> All stakeholder groups are in this together.  We want an Internet that 
> is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or 
> outright capture by any sectoral interest.
>
> */[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the 
> process to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability 
> within stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS 
> stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder 
> collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups 
> start off in the process with more influence and resources than others 
> and thus (to go back to Anne’s question where all of this started) 
> among the greatest tools to ensure against such “capture by any 
> sectoral interest” is full transparency and accountability through 
> appropriate and inclusive structures—which is what I would think we 
> would all be striving for. /*
>
> *//*
>
> We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable 
> collations, and we won’t get those solutions unless we come up with 
> good ideas and discuss/debate them.
>
> */[MG>] agreed/*
>
> *//*
>
> Negativity really does’;t help.
>
> */[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for 
> reasonable disclosure/transparency.  This only leads to further 
> distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes that you are 
> pointing to./*
>
> *//*
>
> We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.  
> Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas?
>
> */[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary 
> to ensure that it is not, as the “agora*”  started out i.e. a place 
> where “/*free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in 
> the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king 
> or council” */but rather is,  as it later became,/* “a marketplace 
> where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their goods */(MG: “and 
> ideas”) and the best way to ensure that the agora is the latter and 
> not the former,  is full transparency as to processes and inputs. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you 
> who is as you say “/* not one of the directly responsible parties for 
> 1net” */and not from 1Net itself, who could as I’ve said repeatedly 
> end this discussion once and for all by spending no more than one or 
> two hours in responding to a set of questions which any “public” and 
> publically accountable process would find completely normal and 
> acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my auditor’s hat) suggests 
> that perhaps there is something to hide which the responsible parties 
> are unwilling to disclose./*
>
> */Mike/*
>
> George
>
> */*/* */http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora/*
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one 
> hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while 
> declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to 
> support its application in the concrete; talking about the application 
> of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and 
> not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and 
> significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current 
> CS activities and outputs.
>
> >
>
> > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a 
> formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and 
> the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes 
> including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures 
> and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute 
> minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And 
> certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion 
> not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public 
> bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet 
> public policy space.
>
> >
>
> > Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two 
> required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources 
> and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to 
> assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture 
> have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been 
> provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those 
> opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed.
>
> >
>
> > It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering 
> Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for 
> example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the 
> contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the 
> “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at 
> least a certain degree of internal transparency.
>
> >
>
> > If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely 
> resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is 
> there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming 
> insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate 
> and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted 
> by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion.
>
> >
>
> > M
>
> >
>
> <<trimmed>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/12432a97/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Mon Feb 10 10:58:11 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:58:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net - We are
 Caesar Wife
In-Reply-To: <52F8ED2D.3010808@communisphere.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com> <055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com> <52F8ED2D.3010808@communisphere.com>
Message-ID: <52F8F713.3020107@acm.org>

Hi,

Umm, we are not Ceasar's Wife as we are not subordinate to the others as 
Ceasar's wife was to Ceasar.  I assume you meant Pompeia as she was the 
one he divorced with those words.

We need to be transparent and accountable because that is something that 
needs to be a default for all groups.  /1net could be much more 
voluntarily transparent and accountable.

I will not be joining the self-designated&appointed /1net Transparency 
and Accountability group, having just gotten off such an effort and 
found it to be exhausting and very time consuming to do a proper and 
neutral job of it. I wish you all the best of luck at achieving an 
outcome that others can look at and see as legitimate and useful.

avri



On 10-Feb-14 10:15, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
> Dear Civil Society Colleagues,
>
> The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who pepper
> the various governance lists and attend the conferences as
> representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above
> suspicion. We are Caesars wife
> <http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Caesar%27s+wife+must+be+above+suspicion>.
>
> A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent activities
> involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been resisted is
> confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not, our good work
> will take place under not in a cloud.
>
> Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the
> billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past our
> heritage.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Thomas Lowenhaupt
>
>
> On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>
>> Tks George,
>>
>> Responses inline
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM
>> To: gurstein michael
>> Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com; Civil IGC Society Internet
>> Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
>> 1Net
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken
>> introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago.   I think that we can
>> count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this
>> conversation.
>>
>> */[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never
>> put his very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to
>> Telecom regulatory matters to work in these areas :) /*
>>
>> First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net,
>> although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that
>> provided people to the 1net steering committee.  I admit that I don't
>> understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we
>> differ as it doesn’t bother me.  Here is why.
>>
>> */[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered
>> by" not understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the
>> non-acceptance that we should and have a right to
>> knowledge/understanding about that process.. 1Net is important and
>> potentially (based on the aspirations that some including yourself
>> below have expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a
>> requirement for full transparency in this and other areas/*
>>
>> Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder
>> groups, but not between them. Ultimately, this is not productive; it
>> results in multiple echo chambers  — the image that comes to mind is
>> of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in
>> London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted.  In one form or
>> another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened.  We
>> should thank its originators.  It is a meeting place, with no content
>> except that which we contribute to it.
>>
>> */[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you. But 1Net
>> has demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a
>> "meeting place". /*
>>
>> */1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's
>> Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by
>> what process and who had input into this process and by what
>> authorization did they act in this way--without attributing any bias
>> or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be
>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*
>>
>> */2.   it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's
>> selection of representation on various of its Committees etc.
>> interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by
>> what process and who had input into this process and by what
>> authorization did they act in this way--again without attributing any
>> bias or other criticism do you  see any reason why this should not be
>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*
>>
>> */3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of
>> discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without
>> attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other
>> criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly
>> presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately
>> or otherwise built into this process/*
>>
>> */4. it expended resources in designing and producing  a set of Forums
>> and an associated website--who provided and directed those
>> resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or
>> interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should
>> not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias
>> was deliberately or otherwise built into this process/*
>>
>> Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture?  You express
>> concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been
>> involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided
>> for framing the on-going discussion.”  I understand your concern, but
>> each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there
>> were any such concerns, would they not be reported out? Can we not let
>> the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence
>> of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern?
>>
>> */[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the
>> information requested above was available either internally or
>> externally we have no evidence on the basis of which to make judgments
>> as to whether it is reasonable to let the process continue and extract
>> value from it" and given the lack of information concerning the #1
>> above we again do not have sufficient information to " let the
>> presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a
>> concern", particularly since concerns have been expressed with respect
>> to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent selection
>> processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups
>> represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector)./*
>>
>> Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of
>> ideas to the Brazil meeting.  I think that is not correct.  Brazil
>> apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting,
>> and it chose 1net.  I suspect that in part it did to want to be the
>> arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form
>> multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of
>> others.  I don’t blame them; they want to work for solutions, not
>> solve representational disputes.
>>
>> */[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was
>> both “interposed” and ”interposed itself” and my concern and desire
>> for information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net
>> "interposed itself" and thus information concerning the background to
>> 1Net should be made available./*
>>
>> IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the
>> Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems
>> accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they
>> must meet.
>>
>> */[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do
>> "define existing problems _accurately_" and in a manner that is not
>> otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by
>> overt action) or implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate,
>> discussion and output as for example, through the exclusion of certain
>> voices or the undue promotion of other voices; or through the
>> introduction of latent “filtering/framing” of discussion as for
>> example, in the manner in which discussion is “Summarized” or in how
>> discussion is channeled into certain directions through the design of
>> a pattern of “Forums”). Surely you agree that full
>> disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability
>> governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about
>> such possible bias./*
>>
>> I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas
>> emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to
>> discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG
>> discussion.
>>
>> */[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above/*
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any
>> kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through
>> 1net, by the beginning of March.  1net is not in any way transmitting
>> or filtering this input (nor should it).
>>
>> */[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a
>> substantive and significant role as “Summarizing” and “framing through
>> Forums” certain inputs into this process and it is in this that I am
>> suggesting the requirement  for transparency /*
>>
>> All stakeholder groups are in this together.  We want an Internet that
>> is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or
>> outright capture by any sectoral interest.
>>
>> */[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the
>> process to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability
>> within stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS
>> stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder
>> collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. /*
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> */As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups
>> start off in the process with more influence and resources than others
>> and thus (to go back to Anne’s question where all of this started)
>> among the greatest tools to ensure against such “capture by any
>> sectoral interest” is full transparency and accountability through
>> appropriate and inclusive structures—which is what I would think we
>> would all be striving for. /*
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable
>> collations, and we won’t get those solutions unless we come up with
>> good ideas and discuss/debate them.
>>
>> */[MG>] agreed/*
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> Negativity really does’;t help.
>>
>> */[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for
>> reasonable disclosure/transparency.  This only leads to further
>> distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes that you are
>> pointing to./*
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.
>> Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas?
>>
>> */[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary
>> to ensure that it is not, as the “agora*”  started out i.e. a place
>> where “/*free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in
>> the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king
>> or council” */but rather is,  as it later became,/* “a marketplace
>> where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their goods */(MG: “and
>> ideas”) and the best way to ensure that the agora is the latter and
>> not the former,  is full transparency as to processes and inputs. /*
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> */And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you
>> who is as you say “/* not one of the directly responsible parties for
>> 1net” */and not from 1Net itself, who could as I’ve said repeatedly
>> end this discussion once and for all by spending no more than one or
>> two hours in responding to a set of questions which any “public” and
>> publically accountable process would find completely normal and
>> acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my auditor’s hat) suggests
>> that perhaps there is something to hide which the responsible parties
>> are unwilling to disclose./*
>>
>> */Mike/*
>>
>> George
>>
>> */*/* */http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora/*
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one
>> hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while
>> declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to
>> support its application in the concrete; talking about the application
>> of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and
>> not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and
>> significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current
>> CS activities and outputs.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a
>> formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and
>> the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes
>> including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures
>> and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute
>> minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And
>> certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion
>> not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public
>> bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet
>> public policy space.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two
>> required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources
>> and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to
>> assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture
>> have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been
>> provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those
>> opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering
>> Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for
>> example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the
>> contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the
>> “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at
>> least a certain degree of internal transparency.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely
>> resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is
>> there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming
>> insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate
>> and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted
>> by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > M
>>
>> >
>>
>> <<trimmed>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Mon Feb 10 11:32:26 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:32:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net - We are
 Caesar Wife
In-Reply-To: <52F8F713.3020107@acm.org>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com> <055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com> <52F8ED2D.3010808@communisphere.com> <52F8F713.3020107@acm.org>
Message-ID: <59BE145A-7F0F-4413-A759-A691C81F6F64@theglobaljournal.net>

Avri,

Tank you for your message, even though it brings no answer to the pending questions. 

Everyone can measure that the issues at stake do have serious consequences. But there is still a difference between "not having the answers" and "trying to elude, or hide the issues at stake". Moreover, if you are not able to bring an answer, or be part of an honest audience that wishes to keep trust around within these present postings, why to bother with an empty message. So thanks for not participating to this very needed endeavor. Then maybe do not feel fill the air with additional vacuum. Vacuum sometimes confuses people. 

Michael, Thomas, me and many others do have a serious, urgent, necessary need for good answers - as you might have noticed, there are people in the 1net "thing" that are transfuses from the lists, and all of that is far from neutral. Democracy is a better deal than Asymmetocracy (see AMS model).

My impression is that you underestimate what it is at stake Avri, and why Michael's questions are simply absolutely critical. Or do you deliberately try to avoid some hard facts? 

Whatever! We will look elsewhere for answers. And they will come. I agree with Thomas :"Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the billions who will be affected by our actions."

History will tell who were the decent folks trying to have a fair Internet debate and governance. And who were the Asymmetrics.

JC

Le 10 févr. 2014 à 16:58, Avri Doria a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> Umm, we are not Ceasar's Wife as we are not subordinate to the others as Ceasar's wife was to Ceasar.  I assume you meant Pompeia as she was the one he divorced with those words.
> 
> We need to be transparent and accountable because that is something that needs to be a default for all groups.  /1net could be much more voluntarily transparent and accountable.
> 
> I will not be joining the self-designated&appointed /1net Transparency and Accountability group, having just gotten off such an effort and found it to be exhausting and very time consuming to do a proper and neutral job of it. I wish you all the best of luck at achieving an outcome that others can look at and see as legitimate and useful.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 10-Feb-14 10:15, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>> Dear Civil Society Colleagues,
>> 
>> The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who pepper
>> the various governance lists and attend the conferences as
>> representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above
>> suspicion. We are Caesars wife
>> <http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Caesar%27s+wife+must+be+above+suspicion>.
>> 
>> A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent activities
>> involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been resisted is
>> confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not, our good work
>> will take place under not in a cloud.
>> 
>> Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the
>> billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past our
>> heritage.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Thomas Lowenhaupt
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tks George,
>>> 
>>> Responses inline
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM
>>> To: gurstein michael
>>> Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com; Civil IGC Society Internet
>>> Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
>>> 1Net
>>> 
>>> Michael,
>>> 
>>> We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken
>>> introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago.   I think that we can
>>> count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this
>>> conversation.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never
>>> put his very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to
>>> Telecom regulatory matters to work in these areas :) /*
>>> 
>>> First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net,
>>> although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that
>>> provided people to the 1net steering committee.  I admit that I don't
>>> understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we
>>> differ as it doesn’t bother me.  Here is why.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered
>>> by" not understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the
>>> non-acceptance that we should and have a right to
>>> knowledge/understanding about that process.. 1Net is important and
>>> potentially (based on the aspirations that some including yourself
>>> below have expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a
>>> requirement for full transparency in this and other areas/*
>>> 
>>> Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder
>>> groups, but not between them. Ultimately, this is not productive; it
>>> results in multiple echo chambers  — the image that comes to mind is
>>> of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in
>>> London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted.  In one form or
>>> another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened.  We
>>> should thank its originators.  It is a meeting place, with no content
>>> except that which we contribute to it.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you. But 1Net
>>> has demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a
>>> "meeting place". /*
>>> 
>>> */1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's
>>> Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by
>>> what process and who had input into this process and by what
>>> authorization did they act in this way--without attributing any bias
>>> or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be
>>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
>>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*
>>> 
>>> */2.   it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's
>>> selection of representation on various of its Committees etc.
>>> interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by
>>> what process and who had input into this process and by what
>>> authorization did they act in this way--again without attributing any
>>> bias or other criticism do you  see any reason why this should not be
>>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
>>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/*
>>> 
>>> */3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of
>>> discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without
>>> attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other
>>> criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly
>>> presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately
>>> or otherwise built into this process/*
>>> 
>>> */4. it expended resources in designing and producing  a set of Forums
>>> and an associated website--who provided and directed those
>>> resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or
>>> interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should
>>> not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias
>>> was deliberately or otherwise built into this process/*
>>> 
>>> Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture?  You express
>>> concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been
>>> involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided
>>> for framing the on-going discussion.”  I understand your concern, but
>>> each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there
>>> were any such concerns, would they not be reported out? Can we not let
>>> the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence
>>> of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern?
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the
>>> information requested above was available either internally or
>>> externally we have no evidence on the basis of which to make judgments
>>> as to whether it is reasonable to let the process continue and extract
>>> value from it" and given the lack of information concerning the #1
>>> above we again do not have sufficient information to " let the
>>> presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a
>>> concern", particularly since concerns have been expressed with respect
>>> to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent selection
>>> processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups
>>> represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector)./*
>>> 
>>> Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of
>>> ideas to the Brazil meeting.  I think that is not correct.  Brazil
>>> apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting,
>>> and it chose 1net.  I suspect that in part it did to want to be the
>>> arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form
>>> multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of
>>> others.  I don’t blame them; they want to work for solutions, not
>>> solve representational disputes.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was
>>> both “interposed” and ”interposed itself” and my concern and desire
>>> for information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net
>>> "interposed itself" and thus information concerning the background to
>>> 1Net should be made available./*
>>> 
>>> IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the
>>> Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems
>>> accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they
>>> must meet.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do
>>> "define existing problems _accurately_" and in a manner that is not
>>> otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by
>>> overt action) or implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate,
>>> discussion and output as for example, through the exclusion of certain
>>> voices or the undue promotion of other voices; or through the
>>> introduction of latent “filtering/framing” of discussion as for
>>> example, in the manner in which discussion is “Summarized” or in how
>>> discussion is channeled into certain directions through the design of
>>> a pattern of “Forums”). Surely you agree that full
>>> disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability
>>> governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about
>>> such possible bias./*
>>> 
>>> I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas
>>> emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to
>>> discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG
>>> discussion.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above/*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any
>>> kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through
>>> 1net, by the beginning of March.  1net is not in any way transmitting
>>> or filtering this input (nor should it).
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a
>>> substantive and significant role as “Summarizing” and “framing through
>>> Forums” certain inputs into this process and it is in this that I am
>>> suggesting the requirement  for transparency /*
>>> 
>>> All stakeholder groups are in this together.  We want an Internet that
>>> is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or
>>> outright capture by any sectoral interest.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the
>>> process to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability
>>> within stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS
>>> stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder
>>> collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. /*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> */As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups
>>> start off in the process with more influence and resources than others
>>> and thus (to go back to Anne’s question where all of this started)
>>> among the greatest tools to ensure against such “capture by any
>>> sectoral interest” is full transparency and accountability through
>>> appropriate and inclusive structures—which is what I would think we
>>> would all be striving for. /*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable
>>> collations, and we won’t get those solutions unless we come up with
>>> good ideas and discuss/debate them.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] agreed/*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> Negativity really does’;t help.
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for
>>> reasonable disclosure/transparency.  This only leads to further
>>> distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes that you are
>>> pointing to./*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.
>>> Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas?
>>> 
>>> */[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary
>>> to ensure that it is not, as the “agora*”  started out i.e. a place
>>> where “/*free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in
>>> the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king
>>> or council” */but rather is,  as it later became,/* “a marketplace
>>> where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their goods */(MG: “and
>>> ideas”) and the best way to ensure that the agora is the latter and
>>> not the former,  is full transparency as to processes and inputs. /*
>>> 
>>> *//*
>>> 
>>> */And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you
>>> who is as you say “/* not one of the directly responsible parties for
>>> 1net” */and not from 1Net itself, who could as I’ve said repeatedly
>>> end this discussion once and for all by spending no more than one or
>>> two hours in responding to a set of questions which any “public” and
>>> publically accountable process would find completely normal and
>>> acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my auditor’s hat) suggests
>>> that perhaps there is something to hide which the responsible parties
>>> are unwilling to disclose./*
>>> 
>>> */Mike/*
>>> 
>>> George
>>> 
>>> */*/* */http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora/*
>>> 
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one
>>> hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while
>>> declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to
>>> support its application in the concrete; talking about the application
>>> of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and
>>> not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and
>>> significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current
>>> CS activities and outputs.
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a
>>> formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and
>>> the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes
>>> including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures
>>> and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute
>>> minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And
>>> certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion
>>> not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public
>>> bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet
>>> public policy space.
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two
>>> required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources
>>> and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to
>>> assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture
>>> have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been
>>> provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those
>>> opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed.
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering
>>> Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for
>>> example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the
>>> contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the
>>> “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at
>>> least a certain degree of internal transparency.
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely
>>> resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is
>>> there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming
>>> insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate
>>> and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted
>>> by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion.
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > M
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> <<trimmed>>
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/89025d08/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Mon Feb 10 12:08:17 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:08:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net - We are
 Caesar Wife
In-Reply-To: <59BE145A-7F0F-4413-A759-A691C81F6F64@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com> <CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba> <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com> <055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com> <52F8ED2D.3010808@communisphere.com> <52F8F713.3020107@acm.org> <59BE145A-7F0F-4413-A759-A691C81F6F64@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <52F90781.3070807@acm.org>

(ignoring cross posting rule yet again, but am responding to a cross post)


Hi,

Sorry my answer was deemed empty. I try to put content in, but 
sometimes, I guess I just miss the mark.

I just want to point out related to my note:

- I have no authority to make /1net more transparent or to reveal 
anything.  I am just another non-governmental participant, though I do 
support the effort.

- I have asked transparency questions on the /1net list in relation to 
things like the open archive for the /1net-sc. So I have been mildly 
active in the same cause as you are espousing.  I certainly have not had 
the zeal of others in attacking this particular issue.

- I wished you all well in your effort.

But, I accept that some may judge me to be a Bad Asymmetric Person 
(BAP). That's life.

avri

On 10-Feb-14 11:32, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
> Avri,
>
> Tank you for your message, even though it brings no answer to the
> pending questions.
>
> Everyone can measure that the issues at stake do have serious
> consequences. But there is still a difference between "not having the
> answers" and "trying to elude, or hide the issues at stake". Moreover,
> if you are not able to bring an answer, or be part of an honest audience
> that wishes to keep trust around within these present postings, why to
> bother with an empty message. So thanks for not participating to this
> very needed endeavor. Then maybe do not feel fill the air with
> additional vacuum. Vacuum sometimes confuses people.
>
> Michael, Thomas, me and many others do have a serious, urgent, necessary
> need for good answers - as you might have noticed, there are people in
> the 1net "thing" that are transfuses from the lists, and all of that is
> far from neutral. Democracy is a better deal than Asymmetocracy (see AMS
> model).
>
> My impression is that you underestimate what it is at stake Avri, and
> why Michael's questions are simply absolutely critical. Or do you
> deliberately try to avoid some hard facts?
>
> Whatever! We will look elsewhere for answers. And they will come. I
> agree with Thomas :"Those privileged to participate here have a
> responsibility to the billions who will be affected by our actions."
>
> History will tell who were the decent folks trying to have a fair
> Internet debate and governance. And who were the Asymmetrics.
>
> JC
>
> Le 10 févr. 2014 à 16:58, Avri Doria a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Umm, we are not Ceasar's Wife as we are not subordinate to the others
>> as Ceasar's wife was to Ceasar.  I assume you meant Pompeia as she was
>> the one he divorced with those words.
>>
>> We need to be transparent and accountable because that is something
>> that needs to be a default for all groups.  /1net could be much more
>> voluntarily transparent and accountable.
>>
>> I will not be joining the self-designated&appointed /1net Transparency
>> and Accountability group, having just gotten off such an effort and
>> found it to be exhausting and very time consuming to do a proper and
>> neutral job of it. I wish you all the best of luck at achieving an
>> outcome that others can look at and see as legitimate and useful.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10-Feb-14 10:15, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>>> Dear Civil Society Colleagues,
>>>
>>> The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who pepper
>>> the various governance lists and attend the conferences as
>>> representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above
>>> suspicion. We are Caesars wife
>>> <http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Caesar%27s+wife+must+be+above+suspicion>.
>>>
>>> A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent activities
>>> involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been resisted is
>>> confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not, our good work
>>> will take place under not in a cloud.
>>>
>>> Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the
>>> billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past our
>>> heritage.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Thomas Lowenhaupt
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tks George,
>>>>
>>>> Responses inline
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM
>>>> To: gurstein michael
>>>> Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>; Civil IGC Society Internet
>>>> Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
>>>> 1Net
>>>>
>>>> Michael,
>>>>
>>>> We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken
>>>> introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago.   I think that we can
>>>> count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this
>>>> conversation.
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never
>>>> put his very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to
>>>> Telecom regulatory matters to work in these areas :) /*
>>>>
>>>> First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net,
>>>> although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that
>>>> provided people to the 1net steering committee.  I admit that I don't
>>>> understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we
>>>> differ as it doesn’t bother me.  Here is why.
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered
>>>> by" not understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the
>>>> non-acceptance that we should and have a right to
>>>> knowledge/understanding about that process.. 1Net is important and
>>>> potentially (based on the aspirations that some including yourself
>>>> below have expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a
>>>> requirement for full transparency in this and other areas/*
>>>>
>>>> Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder
>>>> groups, but not between them. Ultimately, this is not productive; it
>>>> results in multiple echo chambers  — the image that comes to mind is
>>>> of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in
>>>> London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted.  In one form or
>>>> another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened.  We
>>>> should thank its originators.  It is a meeting place, with no content
>>>> except that which we contribute to it.
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you. But 1Net
>>>> has demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a
>>>> "meeting place". /*
>>>>
>>>> */1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's
>>>> Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by
>>>> what process and who had input into this process and by what
>>>> authorization did they act in this way--without attributing any bias
>>>> or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be
>>>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
>>>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of
>>>> inclusion/exclusion/*
>>>>
>>>> */2.   it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's
>>>> selection of representation on various of its Committees etc.
>>>> interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by
>>>> what process and who had input into this process and by what
>>>> authorization did they act in this way--again without attributing any
>>>> bias or other criticism do you  see any reason why this should not be
>>>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was
>>>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of
>>>> inclusion/exclusion/*
>>>>
>>>> */3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of
>>>> discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without
>>>> attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other
>>>> criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly
>>>> presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately
>>>> or otherwise built into this process/*
>>>>
>>>> */4. it expended resources in designing and producing  a set of Forums
>>>> and an associated website--who provided and directed those
>>>> resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or
>>>> interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should
>>>> not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias
>>>> was deliberately or otherwise built into this process/*
>>>>
>>>> Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture?  You express
>>>> concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been
>>>> involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided
>>>> for framing the on-going discussion.”  I understand your concern, but
>>>> each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there
>>>> were any such concerns, would they not be reported out? Can we not let
>>>> the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence
>>>> of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern?
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the
>>>> information requested above was available either internally or
>>>> externally we have no evidence on the basis of which to make judgments
>>>> as to whether it is reasonable to let the process continue and extract
>>>> value from it" and given the lack of information concerning the #1
>>>> above we again do not have sufficient information to " let the
>>>> presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a
>>>> concern", particularly since concerns have been expressed with respect
>>>> to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent selection
>>>> processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups
>>>> represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector)./*
>>>>
>>>> Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of
>>>> ideas to the Brazil meeting.  I think that is not correct.  Brazil
>>>> apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting,
>>>> and it chose 1net.  I suspect that in part it did to want to be the
>>>> arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form
>>>> multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of
>>>> others.  I don’t blame them; they want to work for solutions, not
>>>> solve representational disputes.
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was
>>>> both “interposed” and ”interposed itself” and my concern and desire
>>>> for information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net
>>>> "interposed itself" and thus information concerning the background to
>>>> 1Net should be made available./*
>>>>
>>>> IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the
>>>> Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems
>>>> accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they
>>>> must meet.
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do
>>>> "define existing problems _accurately_" and in a manner that is not
>>>> otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by
>>>> overt action) or implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate,
>>>> discussion and output as for example, through the exclusion of certain
>>>> voices or the undue promotion of other voices; or through the
>>>> introduction of latent “filtering/framing” of discussion as for
>>>> example, in the manner in which discussion is “Summarized” or in how
>>>> discussion is channeled into certain directions through the design of
>>>> a pattern of “Forums”). Surely you agree that full
>>>> disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability
>>>> governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about
>>>> such possible bias./*
>>>>
>>>> I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas
>>>> emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to
>>>> discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above/*
>>>>
>>>> *//*
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any
>>>> kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through
>>>> 1net, by the beginning of March.  1net is not in any way transmitting
>>>> or filtering this input (nor should it).
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a
>>>> substantive and significant role as “Summarizing” and “framing through
>>>> Forums” certain inputs into this process and it is in this that I am
>>>> suggesting the requirement  for transparency /*
>>>>
>>>> All stakeholder groups are in this together.  We want an Internet that
>>>> is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or
>>>> outright capture by any sectoral interest.
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the
>>>> process to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability
>>>> within stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS
>>>> stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder
>>>> collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. /*
>>>>
>>>> *//*
>>>>
>>>> */As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups
>>>> start off in the process with more influence and resources than others
>>>> and thus (to go back to Anne’s question where all of this started)
>>>> among the greatest tools to ensure against such “capture by any
>>>> sectoral interest” is full transparency and accountability through
>>>> appropriate and inclusive structures—which is what I would think we
>>>> would all be striving for. /*
>>>>
>>>> *//*
>>>>
>>>> We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable
>>>> collations, and we won’t get those solutions unless we come up with
>>>> good ideas and discuss/debate them.
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] agreed/*
>>>>
>>>> *//*
>>>>
>>>> Negativity really does’;t help.
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for
>>>> reasonable disclosure/transparency.  This only leads to further
>>>> distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes that you are
>>>> pointing to./*
>>>>
>>>> *//*
>>>>
>>>> We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that.
>>>> Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas?
>>>>
>>>> */[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary
>>>> to ensure that it is not, as the “agora*”  started out i.e. a place
>>>> where “/*free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in
>>>> the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king
>>>> or council” */but rather is,  as it later became,/* “a marketplace
>>>> where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their goods */(MG: “and
>>>> ideas”) and the best way to ensure that the agora is the latter and
>>>> not the former,  is full transparency as to processes and inputs. /*
>>>>
>>>> *//*
>>>>
>>>> */And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you
>>>> who is as you say “/* not one of the directly responsible parties for
>>>> 1net” */and not from 1Net itself, who could as I’ve said repeatedly
>>>> end this discussion once and for all by spending no more than one or
>>>> two hours in responding to a set of questions which any “public” and
>>>> publically accountable process would find completely normal and
>>>> acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my auditor’s hat) suggests
>>>> that perhaps there is something to hide which the responsible parties
>>>> are unwilling to disclose./*
>>>>
>>>> */Mike/*
>>>>
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> */*/* */http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora/*
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one
>>>> hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while
>>>> declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to
>>>> support its application in the concrete; talking about the application
>>>> of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and
>>>> not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and
>>>> significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current
>>>> CS activities and outputs.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a
>>>> formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and
>>>> the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes
>>>> including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures
>>>> and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions.  This is the absolute
>>>> minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And
>>>> certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion
>>>> not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public
>>>> bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet
>>>> public policy space.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two
>>>> required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources
>>>> and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to
>>>> assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture
>>>> have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been
>>>> provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those
>>>> opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be
>>>> revealed.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering
>>>> Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for
>>>> example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the
>>>> contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the
>>>> “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at
>>>> least a certain degree of internal transparency.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely
>>>> resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is
>>>> there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming
>>>> insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate
>>>> and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted
>>>> by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> > M
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> <<trimmed>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 10 13:06:53 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:06:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=EqX88fDQWJikyk8Nefvt26S=qHHCLpkm7SMH4fTOe9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net>
	<CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org>
	<52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
	<52F44D31.4000204@acm.org>
	<20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
	<C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au>
	<20140210122254.01a4c86e@quill>
	<CAH5sTh=EqX88fDQWJikyk8Nefvt26S=qHHCLpkm7SMH4fTOe9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140210190653.23ec021c@quill>

Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> > There is a tendency on this list for people who express certain
> > kinds of viewpoints to get shouted down. "Off-topic" is one of the
> > complaints that can be used for that purpose. This kind of social
> > process is part of what has created such an often-hostile
> > environment on this list that many people are very reluctant or
> > even afraid of posting anything on this list. I say this on the
> > basis of having tried, during the Bali IGF, to speak in person with
> > as many as I could of the IGC's “silent majority”.
> 
> > The IGC charter puts enforcing the posting rules firmly and squarely
> > into the hands of the elected coordinators, and when some other
> > members of the list try to take things into their own hands by
> > posting complaints about certain postings being off-topic, that
> > kind of action is IMO itself a clear violation of the posting
> > rules. (On the other hand, I'd say that discussing the posting
> > rules, their interpretation, or proposals to change them, is within
> > the range of allowed topics for this list... although not
> > necessarily a very fruitful activity.)
> 
> but you are not coordinator anymore to make any decision, you are now
> among other mortals like us :). Ironically  are not you describing
> above what you are doing exactly here and "taking things in your own
> hands"?

I saw myself as participating in a discussion on the interpretation of
the posting rules, and not as complaining about any specific postings. A
fine line to be sure, and it may not matter in your eyes, and I don't
know whether it matters in the eyes of the current coordinators. (I had
refrained from responding to any of the postings that I saw as
inappropriate, but replied when Avri posted that in her view, the IGC
does not have established criteria regarding what is on-topic or not.)

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Mon Feb 10 15:33:27 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:03:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
 - IG
In-Reply-To: <029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHCnXpJAzM0puvfhsNfm6_SXaF+LaoOALE_C4uCcamDFSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHA0FLcsHYzVUkzQ=+eOJK-+27jwN-KgFRtvsgusZNFUww@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Michael,

When I talk about decentralisation, this is not simply a vague notion, but
a reference to a vision and plan which already consists of several
components and is slowly gaining more and more detail. The end goal of this
work is to have quite a detailed map. The challenge will be to make sure
that everyone has access to that map, but at least (if not more) to the
extent that people can find their way in the UN system, I would think we
can make sure that people can find their way in this ecosystem as well.

In fact, to the extent that that ecosystem would actually build on the
existing UN system (which is an integral part of what we propose), this
decentralisation should even make it easier for groups that are not yet
involved in Internet governance but that are already involved in particular
debates at the global level to find their way to relevant internet
governance debates, as those debates would then often come to the venues in
which they are already working, rather than these groups having to go and
look for these venues and debates.

Contrary to your claim, such a system, as we also explain in the short
paper on our ideas which I have shared earlier, would actually benefit
developing country actors - be it governments or civil society - in
particular, as for us knowing beforehand that a particular process is going
to actually address a particular concern is a far more important factor in
deciding whether to invest very limited resources than it is for many
developed country actors. Amorphous processes and venues, in which all
issues are clubbed together, are a minus, not a plus for the developing
world.

What is true is that for such a model to be successful, the range of civil
society organisations/networks, especially organisations and networks that
represent marginalised peoples, that is involved in IG debates needs to
expand significantly. As for how to achieve that, solidarity and
organisation are needed as much on the global level I would say as they are
on the grassroots level.

Best,
Anja




On 8 February 2014 11:01, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anja,
>
>
>
> One thing that I do know from my own work on the ground is that the only
> power that the marginalized have comes through their solidarity and
> organization... Vague notions of "decentralization" are precisely what those
> who wish to retain power present as solutions knowing full well that such
> would lead to the dispersal of energy and limited resources by the poor and
> marginalized. (As by the way the Less Developed Countries know full well
> and recognize as a tactic by the Developed Countries to reduce LDC
> opportunities for participation in decision making since they don't have
> the resources to track and participate in multiple venues and multiple
> processes).
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 07, 2014 5:10 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; &lt,
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent
> earlier, I felt compelled to respond directly.
>
> I have no naive assumptions about power. I do have a very different
> reading of the current state of play than you have. All evidence points in
> the direction that there are (to quote your words) "significant,
> well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to
> insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
> corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
> whatever process" already in most policy processes. The crucial
> difference between multistakeholder processes and other processes as far as
> I'm concerned is that civil society now can provide such insertions as
> well. That is the opportunity here, and as I don't see other stakeholder
> groups abdicating their power in far more closed processes so easily, I am
> not willing to let go of that opportunity until and unless we have explored
> every last bits of its potential to allow groups in society with far less
> power to influence policy processes and thus to help strengthen and further
> democratic policy making.
>
> Do we need safeguards etc? Yes, of course, and as I said in my earlier
> message, I quite firmly believe that decentralisation is in fact one of
> those safeguards, as is the malleability of the model we propose (which
> does leave space for multilateral decision-making as well). But more
> measures are required, and it is in this that a lot of our thinking is
> invested at the moment (and I know that is the case for quite a few other
> people as well).
>
> Indeed, I have found that it is by working through these ideas step by
> step that solutions emerge. Because my reading of the state of play is so
> different from yours, I think that continuing to dig deeper and deeper and
> sharpening these proposals step by step is the better bet, rather than
> letting not having the perfect answers up front stop us from sharing any
> ideas at all, and so that is the road on which I intend to continue.
>
> All the best,
>
> Anja
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
> following the discussion on this list and others I'm struck by one
> overwhelming observation...
>
>
>
> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
> Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
> world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is
> in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.
>
>
>
> Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance structure and
> that proposal for the "management of decision making through MSism" all are
> making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
> assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and
> quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
> ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional
> interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.
>
>
>
> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
> there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
> ensure that these forces do not prevail... that these processes are not
> captured and subverted... i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
> institutional mechanisms that "we" (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
> package we are promoting.
>
>
>
> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
> whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming
> temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do *whatever it
> takes* to twist the result to support one's own narrow
> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of
> this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.
>
>
>
> This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
> sense.
>
>
>
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> *To:* Anne Jellema
> *Cc:* Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
> jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
> below:
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> /SNIP/
>
> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
> kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following
> function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional
> model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the
> goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an international body or
> forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for different
> goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through
> negotiated agreement on globally applicable but ultimately non-binding
> regulatory models (a la ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC
> Rights)? Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an
> enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key internet
> standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or
> none of the above?!
>
>
>
> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows
> such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal
> outlined here:
> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
> It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
> issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
> organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue is to
> be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage of making
> it possible to already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on
> the process, without needing to wait for agreement on the
> one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all issues for all
> time to come.
>
> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
> expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
> such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
> groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on
> provides as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that
> have a stake in that particular issue.
>
> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that
> I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
> document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
> making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
> agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
> would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
> takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
> of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
> This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
> request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Marilia Maciel* <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> Hi Andrew and all,
>
>
>
> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
> comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than
> to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
>
>
>
> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
> the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
> respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are
> also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following.
>
>
>
> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
> power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
> for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
> although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
> has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
> important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
> recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
> along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
> imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
> demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>
>
>
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify
> the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first
> option is correct...
>
>
>
> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
> mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
> recommendations and send them to other organizations:
>
> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
>
> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
> is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
> WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS
> opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that,
> and how does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
> international regimes?
>
> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
>
> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving
> the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
> renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
> the drama before Bali).
>
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
> chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
> very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
> to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
> heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
> the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
> community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
> the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
> enough voluntary funding to the IGF?
>
> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
> sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF
> and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move
> up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
>
>
>
> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
> model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
> prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and
> fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of
> your argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage
> those without power and resources.
>
>
>
> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the
> argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of
> internet issues could be more carefully explained.
>
>
>
> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
> can continue the discussions.
>
> Thanks again for the good start
>
> Marília
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <
> mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don't care what what the specifics of
> that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the
> window of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something
> substantive from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now.
>
>
>
> I'm not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
> should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
> shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
> consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
> represents.
>
>
>
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
>
> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446
>
> *Skype* mnemonic1026
>
> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA
>
>
>
> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.*
>
> www.internews.org | @internews <http://www.twitter.com/internews> |
> facebook.com/internews <http://www.facebook.com/internews>
>
>
>
> *From: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
> *To: *"jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust
> the list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point
> for progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
> disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
> discussions and negotiations can begin. ...
>
>
>
> The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
> best bits meeting
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
> On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Three examples might be:
>
> 1.       Net neutrality
>
> 2.       Protection for personal privacy
>
> 3.       Affordable access
>
> We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that
> we call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
> objectives both at the  international level and in national policies.
>
>
>
> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
> this in a two day conference
>
>
> I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
> The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
> why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
> rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
> your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
> other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.
>
> I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
> dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
> principles and mechanisms.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the
> global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* |
> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> 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.
>
>
>
> Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>to report this email as spam.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Anne Jellema
>
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> Cape Town, RSA
> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352
>
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/a38a4e53/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Mon Feb 10 15:50:10 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:20:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <20140209200812.40d02420@quill>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
	<20140207150553.775173a6@quill>
	<CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba>
	<20140209200812.40d02420@quill>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBdPePUywf+X0BvHgYyfpwPY9DraDSuPkFVRzn7WbdNaw@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with much of what Ian and Avri had to say. The reason I am still
putting my bet on exploring multistakeholderism in greater detail is
because, as I have mentioned before, the defining differences here are that
civil society in that system would also be guaranteed a place around the
table if it so desired (i.e. corporations wouldn't be the only ones), and
that governments would have to account for what they do with the inputs
provided, rather than those inputs just disappearing into what sometimes
seems like a black box. If we can make those things stick, I think that is
a major gain for people's democracy, not a loss.

Corporate power is not the only obstacle in the way of such a vision
succeeding though. It also requires a new kind of organising among civil
society, including by working through and addressing the very real power
imbalances within civil society. That is our responsibility. Whether or not
we'll be able to step up to the challenge is a wait and see, but I for one
would like us to try.

Anja


On 10 February 2014 00:38, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> > Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this
>
> I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly
> better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have
> considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't
> necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get
> posted on the IGC and BestBits lists.
>
> Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov
>
> Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to
> address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms
> against capture and other forms of undue influence by special
> interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related
> discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough
> crossposting problem) already.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
>
>
> >   On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >
> >     I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
> >     the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly
> > take these realities of particular interests (which are often in
> > conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
> >
> >
> >     Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >     > As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning
> >     > Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I'm
> >     > struck by one overwhelming observation...
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with
> >     > respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions)
> >     > are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors
> >     > (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and
> >     > the well-being of the Internet.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance
> >     > structure and that proposal for the "management of decision
> >     > making through MSism" all are making the completely unwarranted
> >     > and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there
> >     > are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely
> >     > unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
> >     > ensure the dominance of their own
> >     > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever
> >     > emerges from whatever process.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
> >     > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures
> >     > can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail...
> >     > that these processes are not captured and subverted... i.e. what
> >     > are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that
> >     > "we" (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are
> >     > promoting.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> >     > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be
> >     > impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and
> >     > the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the
> >     > responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to
> >     > support one's own narrow (corporate/national/institutional )
> >     > interests and what the significance of this observation has to
> >     > be for these discussions and their outputs.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple
> >     > common sense.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been
> >     > telling us?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > M
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> >     > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja
> >     > Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> >     > To: Anne Jellema
> >     > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG);
> >     > genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org;
> >     > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive
> >     > proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Dear all,
> >     >
> >     > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
> >     > comments below:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org>
> >     > wrote:
> >     >
> >     > /SNIP/
> >     >
> >     > If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to
> >     > require some kind of global public action, then in the spirit
> >     > of form following function, maybe the rather daunting
> >     > discussion on the best institutional model(s) will become
> >     > easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can
> >     > think harder about viable routes for an international body or
> >     > forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for
> >     > different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and
> >     > setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
> >     > applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la
> >     > ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)?
> >     > Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an
> >     > enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key
> >     > internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination
> >     > of the above? Or none of the above?!
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> >     > decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because
> >     > it allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on
> >     > goals (see our proposal outlined here:
> >     >
> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
> >     > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
> >     > It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately
> >     > address all issues, and some issues might even require a
> >     > variety of organisations/institutions to lead a process
> >     > together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such an
> >     > approach also has the advantage of making it possible to
> >     > already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on the
> >     > process, without needing to wait for agreement on the
> >     > one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
> >     > issues for all time to come.
> >     >
> >     > Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia
> >     > and Ian expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape
> >     > processes in each case in such a way that the shifting and
> >     > changing power relations among different groups can be taken
> >     > into account and whatever process is decided on provides as
> >     > level a playing field as possible for the different groups that
> >     > have a stake in that particular issue.
> >     >
> >     > Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked
> >     > earlier, and that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us
> >     > present in the meeting that this document reports on thought
> >     > that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be making any
> >     > substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
> >     > agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a
> >     > particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests
> >     > that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
> >     > process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still
> >     > up to that institution to accept or reject that request. This
> >     > is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can
> >     > only request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
> >     >
> >     > Best,
> >     > Anja
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >     > From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> >     > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> >     > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
> >     > - IG governance
> >     > To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> >     > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Hi Andrew and all,
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > After reading the document I was willing to send a more
> >     > carefully written comment, but I believe it is better to share
> >     > thoughts informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the
> >     > chaotic message.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You
> >     > managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide both an
> >     > overview of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the
> >     > group who analyzed them (which are also useful btw). Some
> >     > remarks I would initially have are the following.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned
> >     > imbalances of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other
> >     > similar things as "cases for governance reform". I think that
> >     > one conclusion from that is that although we support the idea
> >     > of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived"
> >     > and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to
> >     > emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
> >     > recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united
> >     > around MS all along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have
> >     > been pointing out to these imbalances for a long time, so in
> >     > order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion
> >     > should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
> >     > identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will
> >     > assume the first option is correct...
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed
> >     > governance" that you mapped overlook some important points. If
> >     > MIPC or MIPOC  produce recommendations and send them to other
> >     > organizations:
> >     >
> >     > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
> >     >
> >     > b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's
> >     > advice? If there is no weight, would we be giving an additional
> >     > incentive to, for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the
> >     > Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the subject
> >     > would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does
> >     > this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
> >     > international regimes?
> >     >
> >     > c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back
> >     > to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
> >     >
> >     > d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
> >     > improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont
> >     > know if there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to
> >     > continue the forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
> >     >
> >     > e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is
> >     > little chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes
> >     > without a very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who
> >     > understand of methodologies to deal with large groups. Those
> >     > who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I did,
> >     > that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN.
> >     > The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the
> >     > technical community were alligned against UN public funding,
> >     > taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of
> >     > improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
> >     > funding to the IGF?
> >     >
> >     > f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was
> >     > not sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the
> >     > frailty of the IGF and the fact that outcomes from the
> >     > coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I
> >     > would look into that more carefully
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
> >     > Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less
> >     > clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more
> >     > opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in
> >     > mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument
> >     > that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
> >     > without power and resources.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> >     > possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so
> >     > maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal
> >     > with the diversity of internet issues could be more carefully
> >     > explained.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
> >     > hoping we can continue the discussions.
> >     >
> >     > Thanks again for the good start
> >     >
> >     > Marília
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Cheers
> >     >
> >     > Anne
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin
> >     > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a
> >     > clear, targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society
> >     > agenda going forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don't care
> >     > what what the specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the
> >     > timeline is excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is
> >     > limited, and if want to take away something substantive from
> >     > Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > I'm not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda
> >     > should be, or should have been different. Brazil is a unique
> >     > opportunity, and it will be shame if it goes to waste because
> >     > civil society focused more on process and consensus than on
> >     > extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
> >     > represents.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --Mike
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
> >     ____________________________________________________________
> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >   ____________________________________________________________
> >   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >   To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/ac14548a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Mon Feb 10 17:01:11 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 03:31:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>
	<CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>
	<044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
	<965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>
	<062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBpqs0ZgaVVd405gc9UP6gy=09GnNfdidebtrztWA2Y=A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Michael and all,

Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more about
how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were shared
with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my
knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation
until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how
to improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have
been requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a
user to interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for
that particular user the experience would actually not be very different
than it is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the
weeks to come.

Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more.

Best,
Anja


On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be
> more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning
> of 1Net (certainly by myself).
>
>
>
> My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time)
> in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward
> 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful
> response.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process
> for 1Net
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation
> that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil
> meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the
> crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to
> inclusions and exclusions.
>
>
>
>             I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency
> and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a
> positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger
> amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this
> point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do
> with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy
> outcomes of that, and future, events.
>
>             Regards
>
>
>
>                         David
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/a86f42f5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From hindenburgo at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 20:28:39 2014
From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:28:39 -0200
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>
	<CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>
	<044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
	<965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>
	<062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPM93kV2BFBO2D=ZhGqDp3DqyvE8oOw2yDTgxJFXmDzJ-nq-9w@mail.gmail.com>

Michael Gurstein,

You're not alone. I agree with your questions.
These questions are very serious and need urgent answers!

Sincerely,

Hindenburgo Pires



2014-02-10 6:21 GMT-02:00 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>:

> A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be
> more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning
> of 1Net (certainly by myself).
>
>
>
> My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time)
> in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward
> 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful
> response.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process
> for 1Net
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation
> that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil
> meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the
> crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to
> inclusions and exclusions.
>
>
>
>             I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency
> and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a
> positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger
> amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this
> point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do
> with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy
> outcomes of that, and future, events.
>
>             Regards
>
>
>
>                         David
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Hindenburgo Francisco Pires

Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Departamento de Geografia Humana
*Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org <http://www.cibergeo.org>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140210/d0beeda2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Feb 10 22:55:38 2014
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:55:38 +0900
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <20140210190653.23ec021c@quill>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org> <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
 <52F44D31.4000204@acm.org> <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
 <C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au> <20140210122254.01a4c86e@quill>
 <CAH5sTh=EqX88fDQWJikyk8Nefvt26S=qHHCLpkm7SMH4fTOe9A@mail.gmail.com> <20140210190653.23ec021c@quill>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=e5N43E_qSYiBtQHb2KNcFto7qbeYOSWNRyBTGEtwUVg@mail.gmail.com>

>
>
> > > There is a tendency on this list for people who express certain
> > > kinds of viewpoints to get shouted down. "Off-topic" is one of the
> > > complaints that can be used for that purpose. This kind of social
> > > process is part of what has created such an often-hostile
> > > environment on this list that many people are very reluctant or
> > > even afraid of posting anything on this list. I say this on the
> > but you are not coordinator anymore to make any decision, you are now
> > among other mortals like us :). Ironically  are not you describing
> > above what you are doing exactly here and "taking things in your own
> > hands"?
>
> I saw myself as participating in a discussion on the interpretation of
> the posting rules, and not as complaining about any specific postings. A
> fine line to be sure,


a fine line needs caution and avoiding taking position against another
member . some want to have focused discussion and maybe think that some
subjects are off-topics. for example, you did that when you  chose to
create another mailing list to discuss on specific topic.

and it may not matter in your eyes, and I don't
> know whether it matters in the eyes of the current coordinators. (I had
> refrained from responding to any of the postings that I saw as
> inappropriate, but replied when Avri posted that in her view, the IGC
> does not have established criteria regarding what is on-topic or not.)
>

for sure you cannot know what matters in my eyes :)
no hard feelings here, but I would really like that you take time to think
about it again with more self-criticism.

Best,

*Rafik*

ps regarding robustness of governance mechanism, what do you think of Swiss
model , which many see as the closest to direct democracy, led to citizens
voting for controversial proposal against foreigners from EU?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/c4a64b9b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Feb 11 01:24:58 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:54:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] NSA's electronic surveillance and drone attacks
Message-ID: <52F9C23A.1090206@itforchange.net>

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/


the combination of extreme informational power and physical military 
power.... A significant structural element of the emerging world 
order... parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/47809711/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Tue Feb 11 02:24:48 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:54:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_NSA=E2=80=99s_Secret_Role_in_the_U=2ES?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=2E_Assassination_Program?=
In-Reply-To: <52F940DB.30304@gmail.com>
References: <52F940DB.30304@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52F9D040.5010807@ITforChange.net>


I had suggested in an earlier post how NSA intelligence gathering would 
support illegal drone strike killings of USG..... sharing an article 
that confirms this surmise. Global IG Processes that limit/counter the 
exceptional / extraordinary role/power of the USG wrt Internet is 
perhaps the most important task for CS to address....

regards,
Guru

Source 
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role

The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program
By Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald <
Feb 2014, 12:03 AM EST 174

The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic
surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to
locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that
results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people.

According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special
Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often
identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and
cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s
identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the
U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of
the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.

The drone operator, who agreed to discuss the top-secret programs on the
condition of anonymity, was a member of JSOC’s High Value Targeting task
force, which is charged with identifying, capturing or killing terrorist
suspects in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

His account is bolstered by top-secret NSA documents previously provided
by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is also supported by a former drone
sensor operator with the U.S. Air Force, Brandon Bryant, who has become
an outspoken critic of the lethal operations in which he was directly
involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.

In one tactic, the NSA “geolocates” the SIM card or handset of a
suspected terrorist’s mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military
to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the
individual in possession of the device.

The former JSOC drone operator is adamant that the technology has been
responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people
facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against U.S. forces in
Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have “absolutely”
been killed as a result of the NSA’s increasing reliance on the
surveillance tactic.

One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the
NSA’s reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some
have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity
within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their mobile
phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to
friends, children, spouses and family members.

Some top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s targeting method, have
purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order
to elude their trackers. “They would do things like go to meetings, take
all their SIM cards out, put them in a bag, mix them up, and everybody
gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former drone operator
says. “That’s how they confuse us.”

As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM
card belonging to a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by
someone else, who is then killed in a strike. According to the former
drone operator, the geolocation cells at the NSA that run the tracking
program – known as Geo Cell –sometimes facilitate strikes without
knowing whether the individual in possession of a tracked cell phone or
SIM card is in fact the intended target of the strike.

“Once the bomb lands or a night raid happens, you know that phone is
there,” he says. “But we don’t know who’s behind it, who’s holding it.
It’s of course assumed that the phone belongs to a human being who is
nefarious and considered an ‘unlawful enemy combatant.’ This is where it
gets very shady.”

The former drone operator also says that he personally participated in
drone strikes where the identity of the target was known, but other
unknown people nearby were also killed.

“They might have been terrorists,” he says. “Or they could have been
family members who have nothing to do with the target’s activities.”

What’s more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing
the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls.
Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program
amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.

“People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” he says.
“It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after
people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on
the other end of that missile is the bad guy.”

The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that its operations
kill terrorists with the utmost precision.

In his speech at the National Defense University last May, President
Obama declared that “before any strike is taken, there must be
near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest
standard we can set.” He added that, “by narrowly targeting our action
against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we
are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of
innocent life.”

But the increased reliance on phone tracking and other fallible
surveillance tactics suggests that the opposite is true. The Bureau of
Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track
drone strikes, estimates
<http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/> 

that at least 273 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been
killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration. A
recent study conducted by a U.S. military adviser found that, during a
single year in Afghanistan – where the majority of drone strikes have
taken place – unmanned vehicles were 10 times more likely than
conventional aircraft to cause civilian casualties.

The NSA declined to respond to questions for this article. Caitlin
Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, also refused
to discuss “the type of operational detail that, in our view, should not
be published.”

In describing the administration’s policy on targeted killings, Hayden
would not say whether strikes are ever ordered without the use of human
intelligence. She emphasized that “our assessments are not based on a
single piece of information. We gather and scrutinize information from a
variety of sources and methods before we draw conclusions.”

Hayden felt free, however, to note the role that human intelligence
plays /after/ a deadly strike occurs. “After any use of targeted lethal
force, when there are indications that civilian deaths may have
occurred, intelligence analysts draw on a large body of information –
including human intelligence, signals intelligence, media reports, and
surveillance footage – to help us make informed determinations about
whether civilians were in fact killed or injured.”

The government does not appear to apply the same standard of care in
selecting whom to target for assassination. The former JSOC drone
operator estimates that the overwhelming majority of high-value target
operations he worked on in Afghanistan relied on signals intelligence,
known as SIGINT, based on the NSA’s phone-tracking technology.

“Everything they turned into a kinetic strike or a night raid was almost
90 percent that,” he says. “You could tell, because you’d go back to the
mission reports and it will say ‘this mission was triggered by SIGINT,’
which means it was triggered by a geolocation cell.”

In July, the /Washington Post/ relied exclusively on former senior U.S.
intelligence officials and anonymous sources to herald the NSA’s claims
about its effectiveness at geolocating terror suspects.

Within the NSA, the paper reported
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-growth-fueled-by-need-to-target-terrorists/2013/07/21/24c93cf4-f0b1-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html>, 

“A motto quickly caught on at Geo Cell: ‘We Track ’Em, You Whack ’Em.’”

But the /Post/ article included virtually no skepticism about the NSA’s
claims, and no discussion at all about how the unreliability of the
agency’s targeting methods results in the killing of innocents.

In fact, as the former JSOC drone operator recounts, tracking people by
metadata and then killing them by SIM card is inherently flawed. The NSA
“will develop a pattern,” he says, “where they understand that this is
what this person’s voice sounds like, this is who his friends are, this
is who his commander is, this is who his subordinates are. And they put
them into a matrix. But it’s not always correct. There’s a lot of human
error in that.”

The JSOC operator’s account is supported by another insider who was
directly involved in the drone program. Brandon Bryant spent six years
as a “stick monkey” – a drone sensor operator who controls the “eyes” of
the U.S. military’s unmanned aerial vehicles. By the time he left the
Air Force in 2011, Bryant’s squadron, which included a small crew of
veteran drone operators, had been credited with killing 1,626 “enemies”
in action.

Bryant says he has come forward because he is tormented by the loss of
civilian life he believes that he and his squadron may have caused.
Today he is committed to informing the public about lethal flaws in the
U.S. drone program.

Bryant describes the program as highly compartmentalized: Drone
operators taking shots at targets on the ground have little idea where
the intelligence is coming from.

“I don’t know who we worked with,” Bryant says. “We were never privy to
that sort of information. If the NSA did work with us, like, I have no
clue.”

During the course of his career, Bryant says, many targets of U.S. drone
strikes evolved their tactics, particularly in the handling of cell
phones. “They’ve gotten really smart now and they don’t make the same
mistakes as they used to,” he says. “They’d get rid of the SIM card and
they’d get a new phone, or they’d put the SIM card in the new phone.”

As the former JSOC drone operator describes – and as classified
documents obtained from Snowden confirm – the NSA doesn’t just locate
the cell phones of terror suspects by intercepting communications from
cell phone towers and Internet service providers. The agency also equips
drones and other aircraft with devices known as “virtual base-tower
transceivers” – creating, in effect, a fake cell phone tower that can
force a targeted person’s device to lock onto the NSA’s receiver without
their knowledge.

That, in turn, allows the military to track the cell phone to within 30
feet of its actual location, feeding the real-time data to teams of
drone operators who conduct missile strikes or facilitate night raids.

The NSA geolocation system used by JSOC is known by the code name
GILGAMESH. Under the program, a specially constructed device is attached
to the drone. As the drone circles, the device locates the SIM card or
handset that the military believes is used by the target.

DT 1

Relying on this method, says the former JSOC drone operator, means that
the “wrong people” could be killed due to metadata errors, particularly
in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. “We don’t have people on the ground –we
don’t have the same forces, informants, or information coming in from
those areas – as we do where we have a strong foothold, like we do in
Afghanistan. I would say that it’s even more likely that mistakes are
made in places such as Yemen or Somalia, and especially Pakistan.”

As of May 2013, according to the former drone operator, President Obama
had cleared 16 people in Yemen and five in Somalia for targeting in
strikes. Before a strike is green-lit, he says, there must be at least
two sources of intelligence. The problem is that both of those sources
often involve NSA-supplied data, rather than human intelligence (HUMINT).

As the former drone operator explains, the process of tracking and
ultimately killing a targeted person is known within the military as F3:
Find, Fix, Finish. “Since there’s almost zero HUMINT operations in Yemen
– at least involving JSOC – every one of their strikes relies on signals
and imagery for confirmation: signals being the cell phone lock, which
is the ‘find’ and imagery being the ‘unblinking eye’ which is the
‘fix.’” The “finish” is the strike itself.

“JSOC acknowledges that it would be completely helpless without the NSA
conducting mass surveillance on an industrial level,” the former drone
operator says. “That is what creates those baseball cards you hear
about,” featuring potential targets for drone strikes or raids.

President Obama signs authorizations for “hits” that remain valid for 60
days. If a target cannot be located within that period, it must be
reviewed and renewed. According to the former drone operator, it can
take 18 months or longer to move from intelligence gathering to getting
approval to actually carrying out a strike in Yemen. “What that tells
me,” he says, “is that commanders, once given the authorization needed
to strike, are more likely to strike when they see an opportunity – even
if there’s a high chance of civilians being killed, too – because in
their mind they might never get the chance to strike that target again.”

While drones are not the only method used to kill targets, they have
become so prolific that they are now a standard part of U.S. military
culture. Remotely piloted Reaper and Predator vehicles are often given
nicknames. Among those used in Afghanistan, says the former JSOC drone
operator, were “Lightning” and “Sky Raider.”

The latter drone, he adds, was also referred to as “Sky Raper,” for a
simple reason – “because it killed a lot of people.” When operators were
assigned to “Sky Raper,” he adds, it meant that “somebody was going to
die. It was always set to the most high-priority missions.”

In addition to the GILGAMESH system used by JSOC, the CIA uses a similar
NSA platform known as SHENANIGANS. The operation – previously
undisclosed – utilizes a pod on aircraft that vacuums up massive amounts
of data from any wireless routers, computers, smart phones or other
electronic devices that are within range.

One top-secret NSA document provided by Snowden is written by a
SHENANIGANS operator who documents his March 2012 deployment to Oman,
where the CIA has established a drone base. The operator describes how,
from almost four miles in the air, he searched for communications
devices believed to be used by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in
neighboring Yemen.The mission was code named VICTORYDANCE.

“The VICTORYDANCE mission was a great experience,” the operator writes.
“It was truly a joint interagency effort between CIA and NSA. Flights
and targets were coordinated with both CIAers and NSAers. The mission
lasted 6 months, during which 43 flights were flown.”

VICTORYDANCE, he adds, “mapped the Wi-Fi fingerprint of nearly every
major town in Yemen.”

DT 5

DT 6

The NSA has played an increasingly central role in drone killings over
the past five years. In one top-secret NSA document from 2010, the head
of the agency’s Strategic Planning and Policy Division of the
Counterterrorism Mission Management Center recounts the history of the
NSA’s involvement in Yemen. Shortly before President Obama took office,
the document reveals, the agency began to “shift analytic resources to
focus on Yemen.”

In 2008, the NSA had only three analysts dedicated to Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. By the fall of 2009, it had 45 analysts, and
the agency was producing “high quality” signal intelligence for the CIA
and JSOC.

In December 2009, utilizing the NSA’s metadata collection programs, the
Obama administration dramatically escalated U.S. drone and cruise
missile strikes in Yemen.

The first strike in the country known to be authorized by Obama targeted
an alleged Al Qaeda camp in the southern village of al-Majala.

The strike, which included the use of cluster bombs, resulted in the
deaths
<http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/al-majalah-freedom-of-information-act-request> 

of 14 women and 21 children. It is not clear whether the strike was
based on metadata collection; the White House has never publicly
explained the strike or the source of the faulty intelligence that led
to the civilian fatalities.

Another top-secret NSA document confirms that the agency “played a key
supporting role” in the drone strike in September 2011 that killed U.S.
citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as another American, Samir Khan.
According to the 2013 Congressional Budget Justification, “The CIA
tracked [Awlaki] for three weeks before a joint operation with the U.S.
military killed” the two Americans in Yemen, along with two other people.

When Brandon Bryant left his Air Force squadron in April 2011, the unit
was aiding JSOC in its hunt for the American-born cleric. The CIA took
the lead in the hunt for Awlaki after JSOC tried and failed to kill him
in the spring of 2011.

DT 4

According to Bryant, the NSA’s expanded role in Yemen has only added to
what he sees as the risk of fatal errors already evident in CIA
operations. “They’re very non-discriminate with how they do things, as
far as you can see their actions over in Pakistan and the devastation
that they’ve had there,” Bryant says about the CIA. “It feels like they
tried to bring those same tactics they used over in Pakistan down to
Yemen. It’s a repeat of tactical thinking, instead of intelligent thinking.”

T

hose within the system understand that the government’s targeting
tactics are fundamentally flawed. According to the former JSOC drone
operator, instructors who oversee GILGAMESH training emphasize: “‘This
isn’t a science. This is an art.’ It’s kind of a way of saying that it’s
not perfect.”

Yet the tracking “pods” mounted on the bottom of drones have facilitated
thousands of “capture or kill” operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen,
Somalia and Pakistan since September 11. One top-secret NSA document
provided by Snowden notes that by 2009, “for the first time in the
history of the U.S. Air Force, more pilots were trained to fly drones …
than conventional fighter aircraft,” leading to a “‘tipping point’ in
U.S. military combat behavior in resorting to air strikes in areas of
undeclared wars,” such as Yemen and Pakistan.

The document continues: “Did you ever think you would see the day when
the U.S. would be conducting combat operations in a country equipped
with nuclear weapons without a boot on the ground or a pilot in the air?”

Even NSA operatives seem to recognize how profoundly the agency’s
tracking technology deviates from standard operating methods of war.

One NSA document from 2005 poses this question: “What resembles ‘LITTLE
BOY’ (one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during World War II) and
as LITTLE BOY did, represents the dawn of a new era (at least in SIGINT
and precision geolocation)?”

Its reply: “If you answered a pod mounted on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV) that is currently flying in support of the Global War on
Terrorism, you would be correct.”

DT 3

Another document boasts that geolocation technology has “cued and
compressed numerous ‘kill chains’ (i.e. all of the steps taken to find,
track, target, and engage the enemy), resulting in untold numbers of
enemy killed and captured in Afghanistan as well as the saving of U.S.
and Coalition lives.”

The former JSOC drone operator, however, remains highly disturbed by the
unreliability of such methods. Like other whistleblowers, including
Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, he says that his efforts to alert
his superiors to the problems were brushed off. “The system continues to
work because, like most things in the military, the people who use it
trust it unconditionally,” he says.

When he would raise objections about intelligence that was “rushed” or
“inaccurate” or “outright wrong,” he adds, “the most common response I
would get was ‘JSOC wouldn’t spend millions and millions of dollars, and
man hours, to go after someone if they weren’t certain that they were
the right person.’ There is a saying at the NSA: ‘SIGINT never lies.’It
may be true that SIGINT never lies, but it’s subject to human error.”

The government’s assassination program is actually constructed, he adds,
to avoid self-correction. “They make rushed decisions and are often
wrong in their assessments. They jump to conclusions and there is no
going back to correct mistakes.” Because there is an ever-increasing
demand for more targets to be added to the kill list, he says, the
mentality is “just keep feeding the beast.”

For Bryant, the killing of Awlaki – followed two weeks later by the
killing of his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al Awlaki, also an American
citizen – motivated him to speak out. Last October, Bryant appeared
before a panel of experts at the United Nations – including the UN’s
special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson,
who is currently conducting an investigation into civilians killed by
drone strikes.

Dressed in hiking boots and brown cargo pants, Bryant called for
“independent investigations” into the Obama administration’s drone
program. “At the end of our pledge of allegiance, we say ‘with liberty
and justice for all,’” he told the panel. “I believe that should be
applied to not only American citizens, but everyone that we interact
with as well, to put them on an equal level and to treat them with respect.”

Unlike those who oversee the drone program, Bryant also took personal
responsibility for his actions in the killing of Awlaki. “I was a drone
operator for six years, active duty for six years in the U.S. Air Force,
and I was party to the violations of constitutional rights of an
American citizen who should have been tried under a jury,” he said. “And
because I violated that constitutional right, I became an enemy of the
American people.”

Bryant later told /The Intercept/, “I had to get out because we were
told that the president wanted Awlaki dead. And I wanted him dead. I was
told that he was a traitor to our country…. I didn’t really understand
that our Constitution covers people, American citizens, who have
betrayed our country. They still deserve a trial.”

The killing of Awlaki and his son still haunt Bryant. The younger
Awlaki, Abdulrahman, had run away from home to try to find his dad, whom
he had not seen in three years. But his father was killed before
Abdulrahman could locate him. Abdulrahman was then killed in a separate
strike two weeks later as he ate dinner with his teenage cousin and some
friends. The White House has never explained the strike.

“I don’t think there’s any day that goes by when I don’t think about
those two, to be honest,” Bryant says. “The kid doesn’t seem like
someone who would be a suicide bomber or want to die or something like
that. He honestly seems like a kid who missed his dad and went there to
go see his dad.”

Last May, President Obama acknowledged that “the necessary secrecy”
involved in lethal strikes “can end up shielding our government from the
public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a
president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.”

But that, says the former JSOC operator, is precisely what has happened.
Given how much the government now relies on drone strikes – and given
how many of those strikes are now dependent on metadata rather than
human intelligence – the operator warns that political officials may
view the geolocation program as more dependable than it really is.

“I don’t know whether or not President Obama would be comfortable
approving the drone strikes if he knew the potential for mistakes that
are there,” he says. “All he knows is what he’s told.”

Whether or not Obama is fully aware of the errors built into the program
of targeted assassination, he and his top advisors have repeatedly made
clear that the president himself directly oversees the drone operation
and takes full responsibility for it. Obama once reportedly told his
aides
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/obama-drones-double-down_n_4208815.html> 

that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people.”

The president added, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”




-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 11 02:47:09 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:17:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_NSA=E2=80=99s_Secret_Role_in_the_U?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=2ES=2E_Assassination_Program?=
In-Reply-To: <52F9D040.5010807@ITforChange.net>
References: <52F940DB.30304@gmail.com> <52F9D040.5010807@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <10CF1287-3ABC-4ADD-8FAD-E646196F6F59@hserus.net>

Is the NSA subject to any of the internet governance structures?  Is India's RAW, or the German BND or the russian FSB or ... subject to them?

All due respect to Norbert's definitions but I will again call this off topic and ask you to take it to a more appropriate forum.  We all share your concern here though we may not be that strident in expressing it, but there is nothing at all here related to internet governance, or even to the internet as this article talks about mobile phone triangulation metadata.

Now please, as the expression is, put a sock in it already.

--srs (iPad)

> On 11-Feb-2014, at 12:54, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> I had suggested in an earlier post how NSA intelligence gathering would support illegal drone strike killings of USG..... sharing an article that confirms this surmise. Global IG Processes that limit/counter the exceptional / extraordinary role/power of the USG wrt Internet is perhaps the most important task for CS to address....
> 
> regards,
> Guru
> 
> Source https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role
> 
> The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program
> By Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald <
> Feb 2014, 12:03 AM EST 174
> 
> The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic
> surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to
> locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that
> results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people.
> 
> According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special
> Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often
> identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and
> cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s
> identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the
> U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of
> the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.
> 
> The drone operator, who agreed to discuss the top-secret programs on the
> condition of anonymity, was a member of JSOC’s High Value Targeting task
> force, which is charged with identifying, capturing or killing terrorist
> suspects in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
> 
> His account is bolstered by top-secret NSA documents previously provided
> by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is also supported by a former drone
> sensor operator with the U.S. Air Force, Brandon Bryant, who has become
> an outspoken critic of the lethal operations in which he was directly
> involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
> 
> In one tactic, the NSA “geolocates” the SIM card or handset of a
> suspected terrorist’s mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military
> to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the
> individual in possession of the device.
> 
> The former JSOC drone operator is adamant that the technology has been
> responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people
> facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against U.S. forces in
> Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have “absolutely”
> been killed as a result of the NSA’s increasing reliance on the
> surveillance tactic.
> 
> One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the
> NSA’s reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some
> have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity
> within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their mobile
> phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to
> friends, children, spouses and family members.
> 
> Some top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s targeting method, have
> purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order
> to elude their trackers. “They would do things like go to meetings, take
> all their SIM cards out, put them in a bag, mix them up, and everybody
> gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former drone operator
> says. “That’s how they confuse us.”
> 
> As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM
> card belonging to a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by
> someone else, who is then killed in a strike. According to the former
> drone operator, the geolocation cells at the NSA that run the tracking
> program – known as Geo Cell –sometimes facilitate strikes without
> knowing whether the individual in possession of a tracked cell phone or
> SIM card is in fact the intended target of the strike.
> 
> “Once the bomb lands or a night raid happens, you know that phone is
> there,” he says. “But we don’t know who’s behind it, who’s holding it.
> It’s of course assumed that the phone belongs to a human being who is
> nefarious and considered an ‘unlawful enemy combatant.’ This is where it
> gets very shady.”
> 
> The former drone operator also says that he personally participated in
> drone strikes where the identity of the target was known, but other
> unknown people nearby were also killed.
> 
> “They might have been terrorists,” he says. “Or they could have been
> family members who have nothing to do with the target’s activities.”
> 
> What’s more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing
> the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls.
> Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program
> amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.
> 
> “People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” he says.
> “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after
> people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on
> the other end of that missile is the bad guy.”
> 
> The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that its operations
> kill terrorists with the utmost precision.
> 
> In his speech at the National Defense University last May, President
> Obama declared that “before any strike is taken, there must be
> near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest
> standard we can set.” He added that, “by narrowly targeting our action
> against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we
> are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of
> innocent life.”
> 
> But the increased reliance on phone tracking and other fallible
> surveillance tactics suggests that the opposite is true. The Bureau of
> Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track
> drone strikes, estimates
> <http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/> 
> that at least 273 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been
> killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration. A
> recent study conducted by a U.S. military adviser found that, during a
> single year in Afghanistan – where the majority of drone strikes have
> taken place – unmanned vehicles were 10 times more likely than
> conventional aircraft to cause civilian casualties.
> 
> The NSA declined to respond to questions for this article. Caitlin
> Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, also refused
> to discuss “the type of operational detail that, in our view, should not
> be published.”
> 
> In describing the administration’s policy on targeted killings, Hayden
> would not say whether strikes are ever ordered without the use of human
> intelligence. She emphasized that “our assessments are not based on a
> single piece of information. We gather and scrutinize information from a
> variety of sources and methods before we draw conclusions.”
> 
> Hayden felt free, however, to note the role that human intelligence
> plays /after/ a deadly strike occurs. “After any use of targeted lethal
> force, when there are indications that civilian deaths may have
> occurred, intelligence analysts draw on a large body of information –
> including human intelligence, signals intelligence, media reports, and
> surveillance footage – to help us make informed determinations about
> whether civilians were in fact killed or injured.”
> 
> The government does not appear to apply the same standard of care in
> selecting whom to target for assassination. The former JSOC drone
> operator estimates that the overwhelming majority of high-value target
> operations he worked on in Afghanistan relied on signals intelligence,
> known as SIGINT, based on the NSA’s phone-tracking technology.
> 
> “Everything they turned into a kinetic strike or a night raid was almost
> 90 percent that,” he says. “You could tell, because you’d go back to the
> mission reports and it will say ‘this mission was triggered by SIGINT,’
> which means it was triggered by a geolocation cell.”
> 
> In July, the /Washington Post/ relied exclusively on former senior U.S.
> intelligence officials and anonymous sources to herald the NSA’s claims
> about its effectiveness at geolocating terror suspects.
> 
> Within the NSA, the paper reported
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-growth-fueled-by-need-to-target-terrorists/2013/07/21/24c93cf4-f0b1-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html>, 
> “A motto quickly caught on at Geo Cell: ‘We Track ’Em, You Whack ’Em.’”
> 
> But the /Post/ article included virtually no skepticism about the NSA’s
> claims, and no discussion at all about how the unreliability of the
> agency’s targeting methods results in the killing of innocents.
> 
> In fact, as the former JSOC drone operator recounts, tracking people by
> metadata and then killing them by SIM card is inherently flawed. The NSA
> “will develop a pattern,” he says, “where they understand that this is
> what this person’s voice sounds like, this is who his friends are, this
> is who his commander is, this is who his subordinates are. And they put
> them into a matrix. But it’s not always correct. There’s a lot of human
> error in that.”
> 
> The JSOC operator’s account is supported by another insider who was
> directly involved in the drone program. Brandon Bryant spent six years
> as a “stick monkey” – a drone sensor operator who controls the “eyes” of
> the U.S. military’s unmanned aerial vehicles. By the time he left the
> Air Force in 2011, Bryant’s squadron, which included a small crew of
> veteran drone operators, had been credited with killing 1,626 “enemies”
> in action.
> 
> Bryant says he has come forward because he is tormented by the loss of
> civilian life he believes that he and his squadron may have caused.
> Today he is committed to informing the public about lethal flaws in the
> U.S. drone program.
> 
> Bryant describes the program as highly compartmentalized: Drone
> operators taking shots at targets on the ground have little idea where
> the intelligence is coming from.
> 
> “I don’t know who we worked with,” Bryant says. “We were never privy to
> that sort of information. If the NSA did work with us, like, I have no
> clue.”
> 
> During the course of his career, Bryant says, many targets of U.S. drone
> strikes evolved their tactics, particularly in the handling of cell
> phones. “They’ve gotten really smart now and they don’t make the same
> mistakes as they used to,” he says. “They’d get rid of the SIM card and
> they’d get a new phone, or they’d put the SIM card in the new phone.”
> 
> As the former JSOC drone operator describes – and as classified
> documents obtained from Snowden confirm – the NSA doesn’t just locate
> the cell phones of terror suspects by intercepting communications from
> cell phone towers and Internet service providers. The agency also equips
> drones and other aircraft with devices known as “virtual base-tower
> transceivers” – creating, in effect, a fake cell phone tower that can
> force a targeted person’s device to lock onto the NSA’s receiver without
> their knowledge.
> 
> That, in turn, allows the military to track the cell phone to within 30
> feet of its actual location, feeding the real-time data to teams of
> drone operators who conduct missile strikes or facilitate night raids.
> 
> The NSA geolocation system used by JSOC is known by the code name
> GILGAMESH. Under the program, a specially constructed device is attached
> to the drone. As the drone circles, the device locates the SIM card or
> handset that the military believes is used by the target.
> 
> DT 1
> 
> Relying on this method, says the former JSOC drone operator, means that
> the “wrong people” could be killed due to metadata errors, particularly
> in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. “We don’t have people on the ground –we
> don’t have the same forces, informants, or information coming in from
> those areas – as we do where we have a strong foothold, like we do in
> Afghanistan. I would say that it’s even more likely that mistakes are
> made in places such as Yemen or Somalia, and especially Pakistan.”
> 
> As of May 2013, according to the former drone operator, President Obama
> had cleared 16 people in Yemen and five in Somalia for targeting in
> strikes. Before a strike is green-lit, he says, there must be at least
> two sources of intelligence. The problem is that both of those sources
> often involve NSA-supplied data, rather than human intelligence (HUMINT).
> 
> As the former drone operator explains, the process of tracking and
> ultimately killing a targeted person is known within the military as F3:
> Find, Fix, Finish. “Since there’s almost zero HUMINT operations in Yemen
> – at least involving JSOC – every one of their strikes relies on signals
> and imagery for confirmation: signals being the cell phone lock, which
> is the ‘find’ and imagery being the ‘unblinking eye’ which is the
> ‘fix.’” The “finish” is the strike itself.
> 
> “JSOC acknowledges that it would be completely helpless without the NSA
> conducting mass surveillance on an industrial level,” the former drone
> operator says. “That is what creates those baseball cards you hear
> about,” featuring potential targets for drone strikes or raids.
> 
> President Obama signs authorizations for “hits” that remain valid for 60
> days. If a target cannot be located within that period, it must be
> reviewed and renewed. According to the former drone operator, it can
> take 18 months or longer to move from intelligence gathering to getting
> approval to actually carrying out a strike in Yemen. “What that tells
> me,” he says, “is that commanders, once given the authorization needed
> to strike, are more likely to strike when they see an opportunity – even
> if there’s a high chance of civilians being killed, too – because in
> their mind they might never get the chance to strike that target again.”
> 
> While drones are not the only method used to kill targets, they have
> become so prolific that they are now a standard part of U.S. military
> culture. Remotely piloted Reaper and Predator vehicles are often given
> nicknames. Among those used in Afghanistan, says the former JSOC drone
> operator, were “Lightning” and “Sky Raider.”
> 
> The latter drone, he adds, was also referred to as “Sky Raper,” for a
> simple reason – “because it killed a lot of people.” When operators were
> assigned to “Sky Raper,” he adds, it meant that “somebody was going to
> die. It was always set to the most high-priority missions.”
> 
> In addition to the GILGAMESH system used by JSOC, the CIA uses a similar
> NSA platform known as SHENANIGANS. The operation – previously
> undisclosed – utilizes a pod on aircraft that vacuums up massive amounts
> of data from any wireless routers, computers, smart phones or other
> electronic devices that are within range.
> 
> One top-secret NSA document provided by Snowden is written by a
> SHENANIGANS operator who documents his March 2012 deployment to Oman,
> where the CIA has established a drone base. The operator describes how,
> from almost four miles in the air, he searched for communications
> devices believed to be used by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in
> neighboring Yemen.The mission was code named VICTORYDANCE.
> 
> “The VICTORYDANCE mission was a great experience,” the operator writes.
> “It was truly a joint interagency effort between CIA and NSA. Flights
> and targets were coordinated with both CIAers and NSAers. The mission
> lasted 6 months, during which 43 flights were flown.”
> 
> VICTORYDANCE, he adds, “mapped the Wi-Fi fingerprint of nearly every
> major town in Yemen.”
> 
> DT 5
> 
> DT 6
> 
> The NSA has played an increasingly central role in drone killings over
> the past five years. In one top-secret NSA document from 2010, the head
> of the agency’s Strategic Planning and Policy Division of the
> Counterterrorism Mission Management Center recounts the history of the
> NSA’s involvement in Yemen. Shortly before President Obama took office,
> the document reveals, the agency began to “shift analytic resources to
> focus on Yemen.”
> 
> In 2008, the NSA had only three analysts dedicated to Al Qaeda in the
> Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. By the fall of 2009, it had 45 analysts, and
> the agency was producing “high quality” signal intelligence for the CIA
> and JSOC.
> 
> In December 2009, utilizing the NSA’s metadata collection programs, the
> Obama administration dramatically escalated U.S. drone and cruise
> missile strikes in Yemen.
> 
> The first strike in the country known to be authorized by Obama targeted
> an alleged Al Qaeda camp in the southern village of al-Majala.
> 
> The strike, which included the use of cluster bombs, resulted in the
> deaths
> <http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/al-majalah-freedom-of-information-act-request> 
> of 14 women and 21 children. It is not clear whether the strike was
> based on metadata collection; the White House has never publicly
> explained the strike or the source of the faulty intelligence that led
> to the civilian fatalities.
> 
> Another top-secret NSA document confirms that the agency “played a key
> supporting role” in the drone strike in September 2011 that killed U.S.
> citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as another American, Samir Khan.
> According to the 2013 Congressional Budget Justification, “The CIA
> tracked [Awlaki] for three weeks before a joint operation with the U.S.
> military killed” the two Americans in Yemen, along with two other people.
> 
> When Brandon Bryant left his Air Force squadron in April 2011, the unit
> was aiding JSOC in its hunt for the American-born cleric. The CIA took
> the lead in the hunt for Awlaki after JSOC tried and failed to kill him
> in the spring of 2011.
> 
> DT 4
> 
> According to Bryant, the NSA’s expanded role in Yemen has only added to
> what he sees as the risk of fatal errors already evident in CIA
> operations. “They’re very non-discriminate with how they do things, as
> far as you can see their actions over in Pakistan and the devastation
> that they’ve had there,” Bryant says about the CIA. “It feels like they
> tried to bring those same tactics they used over in Pakistan down to
> Yemen. It’s a repeat of tactical thinking, instead of intelligent thinking.”
> 
> T
> 
> hose within the system understand that the government’s targeting
> tactics are fundamentally flawed. According to the former JSOC drone
> operator, instructors who oversee GILGAMESH training emphasize: “‘This
> isn’t a science. This is an art.’ It’s kind of a way of saying that it’s
> not perfect.”
> 
> Yet the tracking “pods” mounted on the bottom of drones have facilitated
> thousands of “capture or kill” operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen,
> Somalia and Pakistan since September 11. One top-secret NSA document
> provided by Snowden notes that by 2009, “for the first time in the
> history of the U.S. Air Force, more pilots were trained to fly drones …
> than conventional fighter aircraft,” leading to a “‘tipping point’ in
> U.S. military combat behavior in resorting to air strikes in areas of
> undeclared wars,” such as Yemen and Pakistan.
> 
> The document continues: “Did you ever think you would see the day when
> the U.S. would be conducting combat operations in a country equipped
> with nuclear weapons without a boot on the ground or a pilot in the air?”
> 
> Even NSA operatives seem to recognize how profoundly the agency’s
> tracking technology deviates from standard operating methods of war.
> 
> One NSA document from 2005 poses this question: “What resembles ‘LITTLE
> BOY’ (one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during World War II) and
> as LITTLE BOY did, represents the dawn of a new era (at least in SIGINT
> and precision geolocation)?”
> 
> Its reply: “If you answered a pod mounted on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
> (UAV) that is currently flying in support of the Global War on
> Terrorism, you would be correct.”
> 
> DT 3
> 
> Another document boasts that geolocation technology has “cued and
> compressed numerous ‘kill chains’ (i.e. all of the steps taken to find,
> track, target, and engage the enemy), resulting in untold numbers of
> enemy killed and captured in Afghanistan as well as the saving of U.S.
> and Coalition lives.”
> 
> The former JSOC drone operator, however, remains highly disturbed by the
> unreliability of such methods. Like other whistleblowers, including
> Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, he says that his efforts to alert
> his superiors to the problems were brushed off. “The system continues to
> work because, like most things in the military, the people who use it
> trust it unconditionally,” he says.
> 
> When he would raise objections about intelligence that was “rushed” or
> “inaccurate” or “outright wrong,” he adds, “the most common response I
> would get was ‘JSOC wouldn’t spend millions and millions of dollars, and
> man hours, to go after someone if they weren’t certain that they were
> the right person.’ There is a saying at the NSA: ‘SIGINT never lies.’It
> may be true that SIGINT never lies, but it’s subject to human error.”
> 
> The government’s assassination program is actually constructed, he adds,
> to avoid self-correction. “They make rushed decisions and are often
> wrong in their assessments. They jump to conclusions and there is no
> going back to correct mistakes.” Because there is an ever-increasing
> demand for more targets to be added to the kill list, he says, the
> mentality is “just keep feeding the beast.”
> 
> For Bryant, the killing of Awlaki – followed two weeks later by the
> killing of his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al Awlaki, also an American
> citizen – motivated him to speak out. Last October, Bryant appeared
> before a panel of experts at the United Nations – including the UN’s
> special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson,
> who is currently conducting an investigation into civilians killed by
> drone strikes.
> 
> Dressed in hiking boots and brown cargo pants, Bryant called for
> “independent investigations” into the Obama administration’s drone
> program. “At the end of our pledge of allegiance, we say ‘with liberty
> and justice for all,’” he told the panel. “I believe that should be
> applied to not only American citizens, but everyone that we interact
> with as well, to put them on an equal level and to treat them with respect.”
> 
> Unlike those who oversee the drone program, Bryant also took personal
> responsibility for his actions in the killing of Awlaki. “I was a drone
> operator for six years, active duty for six years in the U.S. Air Force,
> and I was party to the violations of constitutional rights of an
> American citizen who should have been tried under a jury,” he said. “And
> because I violated that constitutional right, I became an enemy of the
> American people.”
> 
> Bryant later told /The Intercept/, “I had to get out because we were
> told that the president wanted Awlaki dead. And I wanted him dead. I was
> told that he was a traitor to our country…. I didn’t really understand
> that our Constitution covers people, American citizens, who have
> betrayed our country. They still deserve a trial.”
> 
> The killing of Awlaki and his son still haunt Bryant. The younger
> Awlaki, Abdulrahman, had run away from home to try to find his dad, whom
> he had not seen in three years. But his father was killed before
> Abdulrahman could locate him. Abdulrahman was then killed in a separate
> strike two weeks later as he ate dinner with his teenage cousin and some
> friends. The White House has never explained the strike.
> 
> “I don’t think there’s any day that goes by when I don’t think about
> those two, to be honest,” Bryant says. “The kid doesn’t seem like
> someone who would be a suicide bomber or want to die or something like
> that. He honestly seems like a kid who missed his dad and went there to
> go see his dad.”
> 
> Last May, President Obama acknowledged that “the necessary secrecy”
> involved in lethal strikes “can end up shielding our government from the
> public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a
> president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.”
> 
> But that, says the former JSOC operator, is precisely what has happened.
> Given how much the government now relies on drone strikes – and given
> how many of those strikes are now dependent on metadata rather than
> human intelligence – the operator warns that political officials may
> view the geolocation program as more dependable than it really is.
> 
> “I don’t know whether or not President Obama would be comfortable
> approving the drone strikes if he knew the potential for mistakes that
> are there,” he says. “All he knows is what he’s told.”
> 
> Whether or not Obama is fully aware of the errors built into the program
> of targeted assassination, he and his top advisors have repeatedly made
> clear that the president himself directly oversees the drone operation
> and takes full responsibility for it. Obama once reportedly told his
> aides
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/obama-drones-double-down_n_4208815.html> 
> that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people.”
> 
> The president added, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Tue Feb 11 03:10:33 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:10:33 +1100
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_NSA=E2=80=99s_Secret_Role_in_the_U?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=2ES=2E_Assassination_Program?=
In-Reply-To: <10CF1287-3ABC-4ADD-8FAD-E646196F6F59@hserus.net>
References: <52F940DB.30304@gmail.com> <52F9D040.5010807@ITforChange.net> <10CF1287-3ABC-4ADD-8FAD-E646196F6F59@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <19A25C5D27F24531B56185277A8CC00E@Toshiba>

totally related to internet governance debates in that lack of trust in the 
Internet has grown significantly since the beginning of these revelations 
about NSA activity. And lack of trust will grow more as the revelations get 
worse.

That was the original reason for Montevideo statement and (probably) the 
original rationale for 1net

Also the rationale for Brazil summit.

If (like me) you have read enough on this subject, I suggest simply skip to 
the next article without commenting.  Heavens, there is enough nitpicking 
about postings, opinions,and processes on this list - from all sides - to 
render sensible discussion and development of policy on major issues  almost 
impossible.

To everyone involved in all the civil society factions fighting on this 
list, I suggest

Let many things pass. Concentrate on issues that matter and where discussion 
can make a difference and lead to positive actions.








-----Original Message----- 
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:47 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination 
Program

Is the NSA subject to any of the internet governance structures?  Is India's 
RAW, or the German BND or the russian FSB or ... subject to them?

All due respect to Norbert's definitions but I will again call this off 
topic and ask you to take it to a more appropriate forum.  We all share your 
concern here though we may not be that strident in expressing it, but there 
is nothing at all here related to internet governance, or even to the 
internet as this article talks about mobile phone triangulation metadata.

Now please, as the expression is, put a sock in it already.

--srs (iPad)

> On 11-Feb-2014, at 12:54, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>
>
> I had suggested in an earlier post how NSA intelligence gathering would 
> support illegal drone strike killings of USG..... sharing an article that 
> confirms this surmise. Global IG Processes that limit/counter the 
> exceptional / extraordinary role/power of the USG wrt Internet is perhaps 
> the most important task for CS to address....
>
> regards,
> Guru
>
> Source 
> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role
>
> The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program
> By Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald <
> Feb 2014, 12:03 AM EST 174
>
> The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic
> surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to
> locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that
> results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people.
>
> According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special
> Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often
> identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and
> cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s
> identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the
> U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of
> the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.
>
> The drone operator, who agreed to discuss the top-secret programs on the
> condition of anonymity, was a member of JSOC’s High Value Targeting task
> force, which is charged with identifying, capturing or killing terrorist
> suspects in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
>
> His account is bolstered by top-secret NSA documents previously provided
> by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is also supported by a former drone
> sensor operator with the U.S. Air Force, Brandon Bryant, who has become
> an outspoken critic of the lethal operations in which he was directly
> involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
>
> In one tactic, the NSA “geolocates” the SIM card or handset of a
> suspected terrorist’s mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military
> to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the
> individual in possession of the device.
>
> The former JSOC drone operator is adamant that the technology has been
> responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people
> facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against U.S. forces in
> Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have “absolutely”
> been killed as a result of the NSA’s increasing reliance on the
> surveillance tactic.
>
> One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the
> NSA’s reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some
> have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity
> within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their mobile
> phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to
> friends, children, spouses and family members.
>
> Some top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s targeting method, have
> purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order
> to elude their trackers. “They would do things like go to meetings, take
> all their SIM cards out, put them in a bag, mix them up, and everybody
> gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former drone operator
> says. “That’s how they confuse us.”
>
> As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM
> card belonging to a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by
> someone else, who is then killed in a strike. According to the former
> drone operator, the geolocation cells at the NSA that run the tracking
> program – known as Geo Cell –sometimes facilitate strikes without
> knowing whether the individual in possession of a tracked cell phone or
> SIM card is in fact the intended target of the strike.
>
> “Once the bomb lands or a night raid happens, you know that phone is
> there,” he says. “But we don’t know who’s behind it, who’s holding it.
> It’s of course assumed that the phone belongs to a human being who is
> nefarious and considered an ‘unlawful enemy combatant.’ This is where it
> gets very shady.”
>
> The former drone operator also says that he personally participated in
> drone strikes where the identity of the target was known, but other
> unknown people nearby were also killed.
>
> “They might have been terrorists,” he says. “Or they could have been
> family members who have nothing to do with the target’s activities.”
>
> What’s more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing
> the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls.
> Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program
> amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.
>
> “People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” he says.
> “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after
> people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on
> the other end of that missile is the bad guy.”
>
> The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that its operations
> kill terrorists with the utmost precision.
>
> In his speech at the National Defense University last May, President
> Obama declared that “before any strike is taken, there must be
> near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest
> standard we can set.” He added that, “by narrowly targeting our action
> against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we
> are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of
> innocent life.”
>
> But the increased reliance on phone tracking and other fallible
> surveillance tactics suggests that the opposite is true. The Bureau of
> Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track
> drone strikes, estimates
> <http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/>
> that at least 273 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been
> killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration. A
> recent study conducted by a U.S. military adviser found that, during a
> single year in Afghanistan – where the majority of drone strikes have
> taken place – unmanned vehicles were 10 times more likely than
> conventional aircraft to cause civilian casualties.
>
> The NSA declined to respond to questions for this article. Caitlin
> Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, also refused
> to discuss “the type of operational detail that, in our view, should not
> be published.”
>
> In describing the administration’s policy on targeted killings, Hayden
> would not say whether strikes are ever ordered without the use of human
> intelligence. She emphasized that “our assessments are not based on a
> single piece of information. We gather and scrutinize information from a
> variety of sources and methods before we draw conclusions.”
>
> Hayden felt free, however, to note the role that human intelligence
> plays /after/ a deadly strike occurs. “After any use of targeted lethal
> force, when there are indications that civilian deaths may have
> occurred, intelligence analysts draw on a large body of information –
> including human intelligence, signals intelligence, media reports, and
> surveillance footage – to help us make informed determinations about
> whether civilians were in fact killed or injured.”
>
> The government does not appear to apply the same standard of care in
> selecting whom to target for assassination. The former JSOC drone
> operator estimates that the overwhelming majority of high-value target
> operations he worked on in Afghanistan relied on signals intelligence,
> known as SIGINT, based on the NSA’s phone-tracking technology.
>
> “Everything they turned into a kinetic strike or a night raid was almost
> 90 percent that,” he says. “You could tell, because you’d go back to the
> mission reports and it will say ‘this mission was triggered by SIGINT,’
> which means it was triggered by a geolocation cell.”
>
> In July, the /Washington Post/ relied exclusively on former senior U.S.
> intelligence officials and anonymous sources to herald the NSA’s claims
> about its effectiveness at geolocating terror suspects.
>
> Within the NSA, the paper reported
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-growth-fueled-by-need-to-target-terrorists/2013/07/21/24c93cf4-f0b1-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html>,
> “A motto quickly caught on at Geo Cell: ‘We Track ’Em, You Whack ’Em.’”
>
> But the /Post/ article included virtually no skepticism about the NSA’s
> claims, and no discussion at all about how the unreliability of the
> agency’s targeting methods results in the killing of innocents.
>
> In fact, as the former JSOC drone operator recounts, tracking people by
> metadata and then killing them by SIM card is inherently flawed. The NSA
> “will develop a pattern,” he says, “where they understand that this is
> what this person’s voice sounds like, this is who his friends are, this
> is who his commander is, this is who his subordinates are. And they put
> them into a matrix. But it’s not always correct. There’s a lot of human
> error in that.”
>
> The JSOC operator’s account is supported by another insider who was
> directly involved in the drone program. Brandon Bryant spent six years
> as a “stick monkey” – a drone sensor operator who controls the “eyes” of
> the U.S. military’s unmanned aerial vehicles. By the time he left the
> Air Force in 2011, Bryant’s squadron, which included a small crew of
> veteran drone operators, had been credited with killing 1,626 “enemies”
> in action.
>
> Bryant says he has come forward because he is tormented by the loss of
> civilian life he believes that he and his squadron may have caused.
> Today he is committed to informing the public about lethal flaws in the
> U.S. drone program.
>
> Bryant describes the program as highly compartmentalized: Drone
> operators taking shots at targets on the ground have little idea where
> the intelligence is coming from.
>
> “I don’t know who we worked with,” Bryant says. “We were never privy to
> that sort of information. If the NSA did work with us, like, I have no
> clue.”
>
> During the course of his career, Bryant says, many targets of U.S. drone
> strikes evolved their tactics, particularly in the handling of cell
> phones. “They’ve gotten really smart now and they don’t make the same
> mistakes as they used to,” he says. “They’d get rid of the SIM card and
> they’d get a new phone, or they’d put the SIM card in the new phone.”
>
> As the former JSOC drone operator describes – and as classified
> documents obtained from Snowden confirm – the NSA doesn’t just locate
> the cell phones of terror suspects by intercepting communications from
> cell phone towers and Internet service providers. The agency also equips
> drones and other aircraft with devices known as “virtual base-tower
> transceivers” – creating, in effect, a fake cell phone tower that can
> force a targeted person’s device to lock onto the NSA’s receiver without
> their knowledge.
>
> That, in turn, allows the military to track the cell phone to within 30
> feet of its actual location, feeding the real-time data to teams of
> drone operators who conduct missile strikes or facilitate night raids.
>
> The NSA geolocation system used by JSOC is known by the code name
> GILGAMESH. Under the program, a specially constructed device is attached
> to the drone. As the drone circles, the device locates the SIM card or
> handset that the military believes is used by the target.
>
> DT 1
>
> Relying on this method, says the former JSOC drone operator, means that
> the “wrong people” could be killed due to metadata errors, particularly
> in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. “We don’t have people on the ground –we
> don’t have the same forces, informants, or information coming in from
> those areas – as we do where we have a strong foothold, like we do in
> Afghanistan. I would say that it’s even more likely that mistakes are
> made in places such as Yemen or Somalia, and especially Pakistan.”
>
> As of May 2013, according to the former drone operator, President Obama
> had cleared 16 people in Yemen and five in Somalia for targeting in
> strikes. Before a strike is green-lit, he says, there must be at least
> two sources of intelligence. The problem is that both of those sources
> often involve NSA-supplied data, rather than human intelligence (HUMINT).
>
> As the former drone operator explains, the process of tracking and
> ultimately killing a targeted person is known within the military as F3:
> Find, Fix, Finish. “Since there’s almost zero HUMINT operations in Yemen
> – at least involving JSOC – every one of their strikes relies on signals
> and imagery for confirmation: signals being the cell phone lock, which
> is the ‘find’ and imagery being the ‘unblinking eye’ which is the
> ‘fix.’” The “finish” is the strike itself.
>
> “JSOC acknowledges that it would be completely helpless without the NSA
> conducting mass surveillance on an industrial level,” the former drone
> operator says. “That is what creates those baseball cards you hear
> about,” featuring potential targets for drone strikes or raids.
>
> President Obama signs authorizations for “hits” that remain valid for 60
> days. If a target cannot be located within that period, it must be
> reviewed and renewed. According to the former drone operator, it can
> take 18 months or longer to move from intelligence gathering to getting
> approval to actually carrying out a strike in Yemen. “What that tells
> me,” he says, “is that commanders, once given the authorization needed
> to strike, are more likely to strike when they see an opportunity – even
> if there’s a high chance of civilians being killed, too – because in
> their mind they might never get the chance to strike that target again.”
>
> While drones are not the only method used to kill targets, they have
> become so prolific that they are now a standard part of U.S. military
> culture. Remotely piloted Reaper and Predator vehicles are often given
> nicknames. Among those used in Afghanistan, says the former JSOC drone
> operator, were “Lightning” and “Sky Raider.”
>
> The latter drone, he adds, was also referred to as “Sky Raper,” for a
> simple reason – “because it killed a lot of people.” When operators were
> assigned to “Sky Raper,” he adds, it meant that “somebody was going to
> die. It was always set to the most high-priority missions.”
>
> In addition to the GILGAMESH system used by JSOC, the CIA uses a similar
> NSA platform known as SHENANIGANS. The operation – previously
> undisclosed – utilizes a pod on aircraft that vacuums up massive amounts
> of data from any wireless routers, computers, smart phones or other
> electronic devices that are within range.
>
> One top-secret NSA document provided by Snowden is written by a
> SHENANIGANS operator who documents his March 2012 deployment to Oman,
> where the CIA has established a drone base. The operator describes how,
> from almost four miles in the air, he searched for communications
> devices believed to be used by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in
> neighboring Yemen.The mission was code named VICTORYDANCE.
>
> “The VICTORYDANCE mission was a great experience,” the operator writes.
> “It was truly a joint interagency effort between CIA and NSA. Flights
> and targets were coordinated with both CIAers and NSAers. The mission
> lasted 6 months, during which 43 flights were flown.”
>
> VICTORYDANCE, he adds, “mapped the Wi-Fi fingerprint of nearly every
> major town in Yemen.”
>
> DT 5
>
> DT 6
>
> The NSA has played an increasingly central role in drone killings over
> the past five years. In one top-secret NSA document from 2010, the head
> of the agency’s Strategic Planning and Policy Division of the
> Counterterrorism Mission Management Center recounts the history of the
> NSA’s involvement in Yemen. Shortly before President Obama took office,
> the document reveals, the agency began to “shift analytic resources to
> focus on Yemen.”
>
> In 2008, the NSA had only three analysts dedicated to Al Qaeda in the
> Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. By the fall of 2009, it had 45 analysts, and
> the agency was producing “high quality” signal intelligence for the CIA
> and JSOC.
>
> In December 2009, utilizing the NSA’s metadata collection programs, the
> Obama administration dramatically escalated U.S. drone and cruise
> missile strikes in Yemen.
>
> The first strike in the country known to be authorized by Obama targeted
> an alleged Al Qaeda camp in the southern village of al-Majala.
>
> The strike, which included the use of cluster bombs, resulted in the
> deaths
> <http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/al-majalah-freedom-of-information-act-request>
> of 14 women and 21 children. It is not clear whether the strike was
> based on metadata collection; the White House has never publicly
> explained the strike or the source of the faulty intelligence that led
> to the civilian fatalities.
>
> Another top-secret NSA document confirms that the agency “played a key
> supporting role” in the drone strike in September 2011 that killed U.S.
> citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as another American, Samir Khan.
> According to the 2013 Congressional Budget Justification, “The CIA
> tracked [Awlaki] for three weeks before a joint operation with the U.S.
> military killed” the two Americans in Yemen, along with two other people.
>
> When Brandon Bryant left his Air Force squadron in April 2011, the unit
> was aiding JSOC in its hunt for the American-born cleric. The CIA took
> the lead in the hunt for Awlaki after JSOC tried and failed to kill him
> in the spring of 2011.
>
> DT 4
>
> According to Bryant, the NSA’s expanded role in Yemen has only added to
> what he sees as the risk of fatal errors already evident in CIA
> operations. “They’re very non-discriminate with how they do things, as
> far as you can see their actions over in Pakistan and the devastation
> that they’ve had there,” Bryant says about the CIA. “It feels like they
> tried to bring those same tactics they used over in Pakistan down to
> Yemen. It’s a repeat of tactical thinking, instead of intelligent 
> thinking.”
>
> T
>
> hose within the system understand that the government’s targeting
> tactics are fundamentally flawed. According to the former JSOC drone
> operator, instructors who oversee GILGAMESH training emphasize: “‘This
> isn’t a science. This is an art.’ It’s kind of a way of saying that it’s
> not perfect.”
>
> Yet the tracking “pods” mounted on the bottom of drones have facilitated
> thousands of “capture or kill” operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen,
> Somalia and Pakistan since September 11. One top-secret NSA document
> provided by Snowden notes that by 2009, “for the first time in the
> history of the U.S. Air Force, more pilots were trained to fly drones …
> than conventional fighter aircraft,” leading to a “‘tipping point’ in
> U.S. military combat behavior in resorting to air strikes in areas of
> undeclared wars,” such as Yemen and Pakistan.
>
> The document continues: “Did you ever think you would see the day when
> the U.S. would be conducting combat operations in a country equipped
> with nuclear weapons without a boot on the ground or a pilot in the air?”
>
> Even NSA operatives seem to recognize how profoundly the agency’s
> tracking technology deviates from standard operating methods of war.
>
> One NSA document from 2005 poses this question: “What resembles ‘LITTLE
> BOY’ (one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during World War II) and
> as LITTLE BOY did, represents the dawn of a new era (at least in SIGINT
> and precision geolocation)?”
>
> Its reply: “If you answered a pod mounted on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
> (UAV) that is currently flying in support of the Global War on
> Terrorism, you would be correct.”
>
> DT 3
>
> Another document boasts that geolocation technology has “cued and
> compressed numerous ‘kill chains’ (i.e. all of the steps taken to find,
> track, target, and engage the enemy), resulting in untold numbers of
> enemy killed and captured in Afghanistan as well as the saving of U.S.
> and Coalition lives.”
>
> The former JSOC drone operator, however, remains highly disturbed by the
> unreliability of such methods. Like other whistleblowers, including
> Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, he says that his efforts to alert
> his superiors to the problems were brushed off. “The system continues to
> work because, like most things in the military, the people who use it
> trust it unconditionally,” he says.
>
> When he would raise objections about intelligence that was “rushed” or
> “inaccurate” or “outright wrong,” he adds, “the most common response I
> would get was ‘JSOC wouldn’t spend millions and millions of dollars, and
> man hours, to go after someone if they weren’t certain that they were
> the right person.’ There is a saying at the NSA: ‘SIGINT never lies.’It
> may be true that SIGINT never lies, but it’s subject to human error.”
>
> The government’s assassination program is actually constructed, he adds,
> to avoid self-correction. “They make rushed decisions and are often
> wrong in their assessments. They jump to conclusions and there is no
> going back to correct mistakes.” Because there is an ever-increasing
> demand for more targets to be added to the kill list, he says, the
> mentality is “just keep feeding the beast.”
>
> For Bryant, the killing of Awlaki – followed two weeks later by the
> killing of his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al Awlaki, also an American
> citizen – motivated him to speak out. Last October, Bryant appeared
> before a panel of experts at the United Nations – including the UN’s
> special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson,
> who is currently conducting an investigation into civilians killed by
> drone strikes.
>
> Dressed in hiking boots and brown cargo pants, Bryant called for
> “independent investigations” into the Obama administration’s drone
> program. “At the end of our pledge of allegiance, we say ‘with liberty
> and justice for all,’” he told the panel. “I believe that should be
> applied to not only American citizens, but everyone that we interact
> with as well, to put them on an equal level and to treat them with 
> respect.”
>
> Unlike those who oversee the drone program, Bryant also took personal
> responsibility for his actions in the killing of Awlaki. “I was a drone
> operator for six years, active duty for six years in the U.S. Air Force,
> and I was party to the violations of constitutional rights of an
> American citizen who should have been tried under a jury,” he said. “And
> because I violated that constitutional right, I became an enemy of the
> American people.”
>
> Bryant later told /The Intercept/, “I had to get out because we were
> told that the president wanted Awlaki dead. And I wanted him dead. I was
> told that he was a traitor to our country…. I didn’t really understand
> that our Constitution covers people, American citizens, who have
> betrayed our country. They still deserve a trial.”
>
> The killing of Awlaki and his son still haunt Bryant. The younger
> Awlaki, Abdulrahman, had run away from home to try to find his dad, whom
> he had not seen in three years. But his father was killed before
> Abdulrahman could locate him. Abdulrahman was then killed in a separate
> strike two weeks later as he ate dinner with his teenage cousin and some
> friends. The White House has never explained the strike.
>
> “I don’t think there’s any day that goes by when I don’t think about
> those two, to be honest,” Bryant says. “The kid doesn’t seem like
> someone who would be a suicide bomber or want to die or something like
> that. He honestly seems like a kid who missed his dad and went there to
> go see his dad.”
>
> Last May, President Obama acknowledged that “the necessary secrecy”
> involved in lethal strikes “can end up shielding our government from the
> public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a
> president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.”
>
> But that, says the former JSOC operator, is precisely what has happened.
> Given how much the government now relies on drone strikes – and given
> how many of those strikes are now dependent on metadata rather than
> human intelligence – the operator warns that political officials may
> view the geolocation program as more dependable than it really is.
>
> “I don’t know whether or not President Obama would be comfortable
> approving the drone strikes if he knew the potential for mistakes that
> are there,” he says. “All he knows is what he’s told.”
>
> Whether or not Obama is fully aware of the errors built into the program
> of targeted assassination, he and his top advisors have repeatedly made
> clear that the president himself directly oversees the drone operation
> and takes full responsibility for it. Obama once reportedly told his
> aides
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/obama-drones-double-down_n_4208815.html>
> that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people.”
>
> The president added, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of 
>  mine.”
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t







____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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 Feb 11 03:14:54 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:14:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=e5N43E_qSYiBtQHb2KNcFto7qbeYOSWNRyBTGEtwUVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net>
	<CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org>
	<52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
	<52F44D31.4000204@acm.org>
	<20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
	<C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au>
	<20140210122254.01a4c86e@quill>
	<CAH5sTh=EqX88fDQWJikyk8Nefvt26S=qHHCLpkm7SMH4fTOe9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140210190653.23ec021c@quill>
	<CAH5sTh=e5N43E_qSYiBtQHb2KNcFto7qbeYOSWNRyBTGEtwUVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140211091454.7c304a79@quill>

Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> a fine line needs caution and avoiding taking position against another
> member [..] no hard feelings here, but I would really like that you
> take time to think about it again with more self-criticism.

If I start treating this list with more caution than I have so far,
that will probably mean participating much less than I have been
doing. From various rational perspectives that may be a positive
outcome.

I'll freely admit that it is legitimately possible to come to a
different conclusion that I did on whether it was 100% appropriate for
me to express the opinion “it is off-topic on this list to complain
about a specific posting being off-topic”, in the way (and with the
timing) of how I did so.

I'll also freely admit that maybe someone with greater diplomatic
skills than I have might have been able to make this point in a more
tactful way etc.

I still think that this was a valid and important point to make though,
in the context of a discussion which was perhaps unfortunate but which
had started anyway.

By the way, the process itself which has led to this posting is IMO a
good illustration of why I think that criticizing someone else's
actions in making a specific posting is generally against the IGC's
posting rules, as that kind of person-oriented criticism significantly
contributes to making IGC a hostile environment in which many people
are reluctant to actively participate:

  Ok, so I made a posting that can be seen as questionable. And then I
  got dragged into a discussion about my action of having made that
  posting, and I got admonished to “take time to think about it again
  with more self-criticism.” And the only significant net effect is that
  I'm considering to become less active on this list.

The contrast here is with criticizing the substantive content of
substantive assertions that are being made, and that one disagrees
with.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 11 03:43:02 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:13:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_NSA=E2=80=99s_Secret_Role_in_the_U?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=2ES=2E_Assassination_Program?=
In-Reply-To: <19A25C5D27F24531B56185277A8CC00E@Toshiba>
References: <52F940DB.30304@gmail.com> <52F9D040.5010807@ITforChange.net> <10CF1287-3ABC-4ADD-8FAD-E646196F6F59@hserus.net> <19A25C5D27F24531B56185277A8CC00E@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <5820C0BA-7728-4F9A-975A-EB480BFD0A93@hserus.net>

Well - two things.

1. The NSA / GCHQ etc activities in monitoring electronic intelligence have been known since at least the 80s, with no shortage of spy novels (frederick forsyth's 'the fourth protocol' for example) giving several details that are, if anything, only being corroborated by the snowden exposes.  And in this atmosphere you had Postel and the others, you had ICANN, you had viable international multistakeholder cooperation across the board.  How or why does that change now because someone states the obvious with corroborating details?

2. Let many things pass / stay silent etc - then we get "nobody has responded to this, so I assume we have consensus".  Giving professional propagandists with a pernicious political  agenda the last word and suffering them to remain uncontradicted simply leaves them to declare a very public victory.   Such agendas are every bit as much a threat to multistakeholderism as what they purport to oppose - simply because it fans an atmosphere of distrust and alienates stakeholders, tarring everybody and every organization in the USA with the same brush [which is familiar enough from cant generalizations like "global north"]

--srs (iPad)

> 
> To everyone involved in all the civil society factions fighting on this list, I suggest
> 
> Let many things pass. Concentrate on issues that matter and where discussion can make a difference and lead to positive actions.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Feb 11 04:55:11 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:55:11 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF 2014 Consultation - ISOC
 Submission
References: <CF1FADE8.1C76E%bommelaer@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <B0B9AD12-C5EE-4111-BFE3-CC44723DEC0F@glocom.ac.jp>

I'm not sure, is this too on topic?  

:-)

Adam



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org>
> Date: February 11, 2014 6:40:15 PM GMT+09:00
> To: Internet Policy External <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: [Internet Policy] IGF 2014 Consultation - ISOC Submission
> 
> Dear Members,
> 
> In preparation of Friday's Webinar, please find attached The Internet Society's recent submission to the IGF 2014 Consultation. 
> 
> The core of the proposal is to enable the 2014 IGF event to produce policy outcome documents open for voluntary adoption. In order to get there, it is suggested to seek inspiration from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in terms of producing outcome documents based on voluntary adoption and starting substantive inter-sessional work. The proposal also suggests reviving Best Practice Forums and introducing Bird of a Feather-type sessions. 
> 
> We are looking forward to Friday's discussion (details below), which will precede the next IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings (19-20 Feb. Geneva: http://www.intgovforum.org/).
> 
> Best regards,
> Constance
> 
> 
> From: Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org>
> Date: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:38 PM
> To: Internet Policy External <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: [Internet Policy] Invitation - ISOC Webinar on the IGF, 14 Feb. 13:30 UTC
> 
> Dear Members,
> 
> 2013 was a pivotal year for the Internet. The revelations around digital surveillance have raised questions around crucial issues such as individual rights, privacy and the role of governments. This increasingly complex scenario is creating important challenges, as well as new opportunities for the open, multistakeholder model of Internet governance.
> 
> This year promises to be even more important. To share insights and discuss preparations for the 2014 Internet Governance Forum (2-5 Sept., Istanbul, Turkey; http://www.intgovforum.org/ ), we would like to invite you to join an ISOC Webinar on 14 Feb., at 13:30 UTC. The intent is to start preparing for the meeting, in light of the broader Internet governance landscape. 
> 
> We are looking forward to the discussion!
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -- 
> Constance Bommelaer
> Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships
> The Internet Society
> www.isoc.org 
> 
> 
> 
> Meeting information 
> ------------------------------------------------------- 
> Topic: ISOC Webinar on IGF 2014 
> Date: Friday, February 14, 2014 
> Time: 2:30 pm, Europe Time (Paris, GMT+01:00) 
> Meeting Number: 926 451 896 
> Meeting Password: 2014Ge 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------- 
> To start or join the online meeting 
> ------------------------------------------------------- 
> Go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=mf181a66ad82076a2306b31600d14a765 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------- 
> Audio conference information 
> ------------------------------------------------------- 
> Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208 
> Global call-in numbers: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=270619992&tollFree=0
> 
> Access code:926 451 896 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------- 
> 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?MTID=mebf08e4f2f21d61ebde02c67424838bc
> 
> To check whether you have the appropriate players installed for UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files, go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/systemdiagnosis.php. 
> 
> http://www.webex.com 
> 
> CCM:+16504793208x926451896# 
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. You should inform all meeting attendees prior to recording if you intend to record the meeting. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/42fc96c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ISOC-IGF.Consultation-Feb2014.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 131398 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/42fc96c4/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/42fc96c4/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Feb 11 05:20:37 2014
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:20:37 +0800
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF 2014 Consultation -
 ISOC Submission
In-Reply-To: <B0B9AD12-C5EE-4111-BFE3-CC44723DEC0F@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CF1FADE8.1C76E%bommelaer@isoc.org> <B0B9AD12-C5EE-4111-BFE3-CC44723DEC0F@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <52F9F975.8010908@ciroap.org>

On 11/02/14 17:55, Adam Peake wrote:
> I'm not sure, is this too on topic?  

Haha Adam, you beat me to it - I've been forwarding and tweeting this
everywhere.  Big, big news!  ISOC is finally coming around to the
position that many of us, and certainly I, have been advocating for for
eight years!  Non-binding policy outputs from the IGF, developed by
rough consensus through intersessional working processes, and
voluntarily adopted.

Amazing, after fighting us for so long, but they came around to the same
position in the end.  Congratulations ISOC.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

*WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* |
http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/74e50416/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/74e50416/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Feb 11 06:17:15 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:17:15 +0900
Subject: [governance] NETmundial co-chairs
Message-ID: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp>

Congratulations to Jeanette in particular :-)


<http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/02/10/netmundial-welcome-board-members/>

Sao Paulo, February 10, 2014 - In alignment with the multistakeholder spirit of the meeting, the Chairman of the NETmundial, Professor Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, has invited distinguished names to co-chair and lead the NETmundial organization.

>From the academia, Jeanette Hofmann: an expert on internet governance, senior researcher at Social Science Research Center Berlin for Social Research (WZB), Research Officer at London School of Economics and Political Science, and also professor at Humboldt - University of Berlin.

As part of the civil society, Subi Chaturvedi is an activist-academician, from Delhi University, and also an active research scholar at the Indian Institute of technology (IIT-D). As a media critic she writes extensively on best practices on Internet governance and the way forward through a bottoms up, inclusive, multistakeholder, approach to preserve core internet values.

Representing the private sector, Andile Ngcaba is chairman, founder and majority shareholder of investment group Convergence Partners.

Complementing the group and representing the technical community is Fadi Chehade, President and CEO of ICANN, that holds more than 25 years of experience in building and leading progressive Internet enterprises.

Together, the multistakeholder chairmanship will ensure coordination among all the committees and the success of the conference. They will have their first meeting this Friday, February 14th, where they will discuss further coordination mechanisms, document drafting process, among other internal details.

END


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 11 06:42:51 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:42:51 -0500
Subject: [governance] The greatest threat in the world today to
 peace....
In-Reply-To: <20140211091454.7c304a79@quill>
References: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxjGwp+_Ct_QBtfBpoOf6dMcYTc+PQLedjRErx6nee6ijg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52F3D8D9.5090408@acm.org> <52F448B1.4030408@ITforChange.net>
 <52F44D31.4000204@acm.org> <20140209213910.133ea0c2@quill>
 <C83AF5BF-78A1-42F7-88FE-898128831772@difference.com.au> <20140210122254.01a4c86e@quill>
 <CAH5sTh=EqX88fDQWJikyk8Nefvt26S=qHHCLpkm7SMH4fTOe9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140210190653.23ec021c@quill> <CAH5sTh=e5N43E_qSYiBtQHb2KNcFto7qbeYOSWNRyBTGEtwUVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140211091454.7c304a79@quill>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiOF44e0Ji=0+CfgNqr=2g3yzuEqSR0B-jxuY1nD7RpEw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:


<snip>


>  By the way, the process itself which has led to this posting is IMO a
> good illustration of why I think that criticizing someone else's
> actions in making a specific posting is generally against the IGC's
> posting rules, as that kind of person-oriented criticism



There is no way in which one could interpret my complaint as being
"person-oriented criticism".


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/bdeb5ae8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 07:49:03 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:49:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] NETmundial co-chairs
In-Reply-To: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4DYYJ-QshsbCYU4kug+u+X0M2C20gjuT1kpOGJvMQiLg@mail.gmail.com>

+1
Deirdre


On 11 February 2014 07:17, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Congratulations to Jeanette in particular :-)
>
>
> <http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/02/10/netmundial-welcome-board-members/>
>
> ...
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/5a0157da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 08:05:45 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:35:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
 - IG
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHA0FLcsHYzVUkzQ=+eOJK-+27jwN-KgFRtvsgusZNFUww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>	<CAJqNAHCnXpJAzM0puvfhsNfm6_SXaF+LaoOALE_C4uCcamDFSQ@mail.gmail.com>	<029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com> <CAJqNAHA0FLcsHYzVUkzQ=+eOJK-+27jwN-KgFRtvsgusZNFUww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0b7b01cf272a$123ef7e0$36bce7a0$@gmail.com>

Hi Anja,

 

Inline


 

From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:03 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm;
&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

Dear Michael,

When I talk about decentralisation, this is not simply a vague notion, but a
reference to a vision and plan which already consists of several components
and is slowly gaining more and more detail. The end goal of this work is to
have quite a detailed map. The challenge will be to make sure that everyone
has access to that map, but at least (if not more) to the extent that people
can find their way in the UN system, I would think we can make sure that
people can find their way in this ecosystem as well. 

[MG>] I’d be very interested to see this
 However, I think it is important
to distinguish between decentralization of processes and decentralization of
power
 the first without the second is simply making busywork
  my feeling
is that much of discussion that you are pointing to is concerned with this 


Decentralizing/deconcentrating centralized power comes not through
decentralizing processes but through challenging and contesting for power –
a situation where “decentralization” of one’s forces would seem to be a
recipe for failure
  

In fact, to the extent that that ecosystem would actually build on the
existing UN system (which is an integral part of what we propose), this
decentralisation should even make it easier for groups that are not yet
involved in Internet governance but that are already involved in particular
debates at the global level to find their way to relevant internet
governance debates, as those debates would then often come to the venues in
which they are already working, rather than these groups having to go and
look for these venues and debates. 

[MG>] Potentially interesting but again I’d like to see the details

Contrary to your claim, such a system, as we also explain in the short paper
on our ideas which I have shared earlier, would actually benefit developing
country actors - be it governments or civil society - in particular, as for
us knowing beforehand that a particular process is going to actually address
a particular concern is a far more important factor in deciding whether to
invest very limited resources than it is for many developed country actors. 

[MG>] Potentially true particularly if there was something more than
busywork processes involved in these multiple venues, but again need
details
 (there were none in the short paper that you pointed to, which was
part of the reason for my reacting as I did
 

As an example, the challenge in the WIPO discussions I believe, was to
create a real venue for LDC participation and get away from the multiple
empty technical and narrowly focused discussions that (were deliberately
designed?) to sap the LDC energies and resources
 it was only when the LDC’s
insisted on a specific framework to address their issues that any real
progress (from their perspective) was achieved..

Amorphous processes and venues, in which all issues are clubbed together,
are a minus, not a plus for the developing world.

[MG>] Not necessarily, if the issue is a real contest about real issues


What is true is that for such a model to be successful, the range of civil
society organisations/networks, especially organisations and networks that
represent marginalised peoples, that is involved in IG debates needs to
expand significantly. As for how to achieve that, solidarity and
organisation are needed as much on the global level I would say as they are
on the grassroots level.

[MG>] yes, but solidarity around what exactly
solidarity in support of
exclusionary and non-transparent or accountable processes? solidarity in
support of CS appointees who act as tacit or even active supporters of these
processes? solidarity around CS prioritizing Human Rights but denying
equivalent support for Equity and Social Justice 
 That hardly seems like a
useful strategy for marginalized groups or anyone else in CS with a real
concern for how these things are developing, for that matter.

Best,

M 

Best,

Anja

 

 

 

On 8 February 2014 11:01, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Anja,

 

One thing that I do know from my own work on the ground is that the only
power that the marginalized have comes through their solidarity and
organization
 Vague notions of “decentralization” are precisely what those
who wish to retain power present as solutions knowing full well that such
would lead to the dispersal of energy and limited resources by the poor and
marginalized. (As by the way the Less Developed Countries know full well and
recognize as a tactic by the Developed Countries to reduce LDC opportunities
for participation in decision making since they don’t have the resources to
track and participate in multiple venues and multiple processes).

 

M

 

From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:10 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm;
&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,


Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG

 

Hi Michael,

Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent earlier,
I felt compelled to respond directly.

I have no naive assumptions about power. I do have a very different reading
of the current state of play than you have. All evidence points in the
direction that there are (to quote your words) "significant, well-funded,
very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions
that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
whatever process" already in most policy processes. The crucial difference
between multistakeholder processes and other processes as far as I'm
concerned is that civil society now can provide such insertions as well.
That is the opportunity here, and as I don't see other stakeholder groups
abdicating their power in far more closed processes so easily, I am not
willing to let go of that opportunity until and unless we have explored
every last bits of its potential to allow groups in society with far less
power to influence policy processes and thus to help strengthen and further
democratic policy making. 

Do we need safeguards etc? Yes, of course, and as I said in my earlier
message, I quite firmly believe that decentralisation is in fact one of
those safeguards, as is the malleability of the model we propose (which does
leave space for multilateral decision-making as well). But more measures are
required, and it is in this that a lot of our thinking is invested at the
moment (and I know that is the case for quite a few other people as well). 

Indeed, I have found that it is by working through these ideas step by step
that solutions emerge. Because my reading of the state of play is so
different from yours, I think that continuing to dig deeper and deeper and
sharpening these proposals step by step is the better bet, rather than
letting not having the perfect answers up front stop us from sharing any
ideas at all, and so that is the road on which I intend to continue.

All the best,

Anja

 

 

 

On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one
overwhelming observation
 

 

Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in
the public good and the well-being of the Internet.  

 

Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and
that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are
making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite
likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure
the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into
whatever emerges from whatever process.

 

It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
ensure that these forces do not prevail
 that these processes are not
captured and subverted
 i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
package we are promoting.

 

Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming
resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge
from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in
some cases the responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result
to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests
and what the significance of this observation has to be for these
discussions and their outputs.

 

This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
sense.

 

Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

Dear all,

I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
below:

 

On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

/SNIP/ 

If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following function,
maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional model(s) will
become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can think
harder about viable routes for an international body or forum to make an
impact on them, which might be different for different goals. Purely through
cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on
globally applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU)
or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind of
WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and sanctions?
Through control of key internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some
combination of the above? Or none of the above?!

 

One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a decentralised
model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows such a constant
and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal outlined here:
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).  It is
unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all issues,
and some issues might even require a variety of organisations/institutions
to lead a process together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such
an approach also has the advantage of making it possible to already move on
issues for which there is wide agreement on the process, without needing to
wait for agreement on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care
of all issues for all time to come. 

Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on provides
as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that have a
stake in that particular issue. 

Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that I
think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
request other UN bodies to take up a matter.

Best,
Anja



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance
To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Hi Andrew and all,

 

After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to
hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.

 

First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also
useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. 

 

- It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.

 

- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the
more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is
correct...

 

- I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
recommendations and send them to other organizations: 

a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 

b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion
on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how
does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
international regimes? 

c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 

d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the
IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
the drama before Bali). 

e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
enough voluntary funding to the IGF?

f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and
the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up
to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully

 

- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight)
ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your
argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
without power and resources. 

 

- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility
to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that
it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues
could be more carefully explained.

 

That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
can continue the discussions.

Thanks again for the good start

Marília

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Anne

 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)
<mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:

 

I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going forward
to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the specifics of that
substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the window
of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something substantive
from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now. 

 

I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
represents.

 

 

—Mike

 

 

-- 

Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project

 <mailto:mgodwin at internews.org> mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446

Skype mnemonic1026

Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA

 

INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.

 <http://www.internews.org/> www.internews.org |
<http://www.twitter.com/internews> @internews |
<http://www.facebook.com/internews> facebook.com/internews

 

From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance

 

I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust the
list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point for
progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
discussions and negotiations can begin. ...

 

The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
best bits meeting




-------- Original message --------
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> 
Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance 

On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

Three examples might be: 

1.       Net neutrality

2.       Protection for personal privacy

3.       Affordable access

We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that we
call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
objectives both at the  international level and in national policies. 

 

I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
this in a two day conference


I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.

I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
principles and mechanisms.

-- 

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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599> 

WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . 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.

 

Click here
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw
0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>  to report this email as spam.

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





 

-- 

Anne Jellema

Chief Executive Officer

Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 

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 |
<http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter:
@webfoundation


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/4638229b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 08:05:46 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:35:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBdPePUywf+X0BvHgYyfpwPY9DraDSuPkFVRzn7WbdNaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>	<20140207150553.775173a6@quill>	<CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com>	<156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba>	<20140209200812.40d02420@quill> <CAJqNAHBdPePUywf+X0BvHgYyfpwPY9DraDSuPkFVRzn7WbdNaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0b8001cf272a$180675e0$481361a0$@gmail.com>

While somewhat agreeing with what you say below I would add the need to
protect against the capture of CS and other elements in those processes
through ensuring full transparency and effective structures of
accountability.

 

M  

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:20 AM
To: Norbert Bollow
Cc: IGC; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was
Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)

 

I agree with much of what Ian and Avri had to say. The reason I am still
putting my bet on exploring multistakeholderism in greater detail is
because, as I have mentioned before, the defining differences here are that
civil society in that system would also be guaranteed a place around the
table if it so desired (i.e. corporations wouldn't be the only ones), and
that governments would have to account for what they do with the inputs
provided, rather than those inputs just disappearing into what sometimes
seems like a black box. If we can make those things stick, I think that is a
major gain for people's democracy, not a loss. 

Corporate power is not the only obstacle in the way of such a vision
succeeding though. It also requires a new kind of organising among civil
society, including by working through and addressing the very real power
imbalances within civil society. That is our responsibility. Whether or not
we'll be able to step up to the challenge is a wait and see, but I for one
would like us to try.

Anja

 

On 10 February 2014 00:38, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this

I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly
better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have
considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't
necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get
posted on the IGC and BestBits lists.

Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov

Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to
address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms

against capture and other forms of undue influence by special

interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related
discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough
crossposting problem) already.

Greetings,
Norbert






>   On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>     I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
>     the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly
> take these realities of particular interests (which are often in
> conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
>
>

>     Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     > As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning
>     > Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I’m
>     > struck by one overwhelming observation

>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with
>     > respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions)
>     > are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors
>     > (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and
>     > the well-being of the Internet.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance
>     > structure and that proposal for the “management of decision
>     > making through MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted
>     > and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there
>     > are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely
>     > unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
>     > ensure the dominance of their own
>     > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever
>     > emerges from whatever process.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
>     > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures
>     > can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail

>     > that these processes are not captured and subverted
 i.e. what
>     > are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that
>     > “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are
>     > promoting.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
>     > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be
>     > impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and
>     > the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the
>     > responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to
>     > support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional )
>     > interests and what the significance of this observation has to
>     > be for these discussions and their outputs.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple
>     > common sense.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been
>     > telling us?
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > M
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja
>     > Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
>     > To: Anne Jellema
>     > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG);
>     > genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org;
>     > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive
>     > proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Dear all,
>     >
>     > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
>     > comments below:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org>
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     > /SNIP/
>     >
>     > If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to
>     > require some kind of global public action, then in the spirit
>     > of form following function, maybe the rather daunting
>     > discussion on the best institutional model(s) will become
>     > easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can
>     > think harder about viable routes for an international body or
>     > forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for
>     > different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and
>     > setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
>     > applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la
>     > ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)?
>     > Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an
>     > enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key
>     > internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination
>     > of the above? Or none of the above?!
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
>     > decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because
>     > it allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on
>     > goals (see our proposal outlined here:
>     >
http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
>     > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
>     > It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately
>     > address all issues, and some issues might even require a
>     > variety of organisations/institutions to lead a process
>     > together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such an
>     > approach also has the advantage of making it possible to
>     > already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on the
>     > process, without needing to wait for agreement on the
>     > one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
>     > issues for all time to come.
>     >
>     > Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia
>     > and Ian expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape
>     > processes in each case in such a way that the shifting and
>     > changing power relations among different groups can be taken
>     > into account and whatever process is decided on provides as
>     > level a playing field as possible for the different groups that
>     > have a stake in that particular issue.
>     >
>     > Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked
>     > earlier, and that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us
>     > present in the meeting that this document reports on thought
>     > that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be making any
>     > substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
>     > agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a
>     > particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests
>     > that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
>     > process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still
>     > up to that institution to accept or reject that request. This
>     > is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can
>     > only request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
>     >
>     > Best,
>     > Anja
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     > From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>     > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
>     > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
>     > - IG governance
>     > To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
>     > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>     >
>     >
>     > Hi Andrew and all,
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > After reading the document I was willing to send a more
>     > carefully written comment, but I believe it is better to share
>     > thoughts informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the
>     > chaotic message.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You
>     > managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide both an
>     > overview of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the
>     > group who analyzed them (which are also useful btw). Some
>     > remarks I would initially have are the following.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned
>     > imbalances of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other
>     > similar things as "cases for governance reform". I think that
>     > one conclusion from that is that although we support the idea
>     > of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived"
>     > and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to
>     > emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
>     > recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united
>     > around MS all along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have
>     > been pointing out to these imbalances for a long time, so in
>     > order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion
>     > should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
>     > identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will
>     > assume the first option is correct...
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed
>     > governance" that you mapped overlook some important points. If
>     > MIPC or MIPOC  produce recommendations and send them to other
>     > organizations:
>     >
>     > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
>     >
>     > b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's
>     > advice? If there is no weight, would we be giving an additional
>     > incentive to, for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the
>     > Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the subject
>     > would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does
>     > this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
>     > international regimes?
>     >
>     > c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back
>     > to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
>     >
>     > d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
>     > improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont
>     > know if there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to
>     > continue the forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
>     >
>     > e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is
>     > little chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes
>     > without a very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who
>     > understand of methodologies to deal with large groups. Those
>     > who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I did,
>     > that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN.
>     > The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the
>     > technical community were alligned against UN public funding,
>     > taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of
>     > improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
>     > funding to the IGF?
>     >
>     > f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was
>     > not sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the
>     > frailty of the IGF and the fact that outcomes from the
>     > coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I
>     > would look into that more carefully
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
>     > Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less
>     > clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more
>     > opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in
>     > mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument
>     > that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
>     > without power and resources.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
>     > possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so
>     > maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal
>     > with the diversity of internet issues could be more carefully
>     > explained.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
>     > hoping we can continue the discussions.
>     >
>     > Thanks again for the good start
>     >
>     > Marília
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Cheers
>     >
>     > Anne
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin
>     > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a
>     > clear, targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society
>     > agenda going forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care
>     > what what the specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the
>     > timeline is excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is
>     > limited, and if want to take away something substantive from
>     > Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda
>     > should be, or should have been different. Brazil is a unique
>     > opportunity, and it will be shame if it goes to waste because
>     > civil society focused more on process and consensus than on
>     > extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
>     > represents.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > —Mike
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>   ____________________________________________________________
>   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>   To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/9a710633/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 08:05:47 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:35:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBpqs0ZgaVVd405gc9UP6gy=09GnNfdidebtrztWA2Y=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>	<CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>	<044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>	<965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>	<062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBpqs0ZgaVVd405gc9UP6gy=09GnNfdidebtrztWA2Y=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com>

Tks Anja. I'll look forward to hearing back concerning the set of questions
that I posed either from you or directly from responsible others in 1Net.

 

It would be good to put this matter to rest sooner rather than later.

 

M

 

From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:31 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC;
&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
1Net

 

Hi Michael and all,

Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more about
how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were shared
with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my
knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation
until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how to
improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have been
requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a user to
interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for that
particular user the experience would actually not be very different than it
is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the weeks to
come. 

Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more.

Best,
Anja

 

On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be more
than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning of
1Net (certainly by myself). 

 

My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) in
arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward 1Net
to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful response.

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net


Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
1Net

 

 

On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that
was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil meeting,
make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial
areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions
and exclusions.  

 

            I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and
accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a
positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger
amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this
point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do
with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy
outcomes of that, and future, events. 

            Regards

 

                        David

 

            


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/868c8ff9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 08:05:47 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:35:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [open-government] Turkish new internet censorship
 bill
In-Reply-To: <29D7ED6B-CA4B-44CB-A5DE-B1BC65873D00@lse.ac.uk>
References: <CAJhtavaZjxytJ=hT8YBtOGd51tZOksjDiFu74Dekzo8XHm_-8w@mail.gmail.com> <29D7ED6B-CA4B-44CB-A5DE-B1BC65873D00@lse.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <0bb701cf272a$35aacf10$a1006d30$@gmail.com>

This is the venue for the next IGF?

 

M

 

From: open-government [mailto:open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Izabela Correa
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:14 AM
To: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list
Cc: Open Government WG List
Subject: [open-government] Turkish new internet censorship bill

 

Dear fellows

 

As some of you know, on the evening of 5 February 2014, the Turkish parliament voted into law a series of measures that will tighten government control over the Internet, give it unrestricted access to users’ online activities, and increase its ability to block online content arbitrarily. Given the political situation of the country, it's expected that, if turned into Law, such bill could cause major damages to the Turkish democracy. 





In order to avoid such harm, an Avaaz petition has been written in order to urge President Abdullah Gül to veto the bill. Please, sign and share the petition to the biggest extent possible: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/President_Abdullah_Gul_of_Republic_of_Turkey_Veto_the_new_passed_Internet_Law/?aEWnUgb <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/President_Abdullah_Gul_of_Republic_of_Turkey_Veto_the_new_passed_Internet_Law/?aEWnUgb&mobile=1> &mobile=1





Kindest regards,

Izabela Corrêa






Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/877645f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From langdonorr at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 08:24:48 2014
From: langdonorr at gmail.com (Cheryl Langdon-Orr)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:24:48 +1100
Subject: [governance] NETmundial co-chairs
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4DYYJ-QshsbCYU4kug+u+X0M2C20gjuT1kpOGJvMQiLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp> <CAMz5XN4DYYJ-QshsbCYU4kug+u+X0M2C20gjuT1kpOGJvMQiLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADrRf+ctgJcETdUG2hJJK5P9gAPf6jcrW75MvkeEFTzZ2ds1ow@mail.gmail.com>

Excellent :-)

*Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  **(CLO)*
 http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr


On 11 February 2014 23:49, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>wrote:

> +1
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 11 February 2014 07:17, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>> Congratulations to Jeanette in particular :-)
>>
>>
>> <http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/02/10/netmundial-welcome-board-members/>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140212/4f9e48dc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 08:57:26 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:57:26 -0500
Subject: [governance] The NSA's Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination
 Program
In-Reply-To: <5820C0BA-7728-4F9A-975A-EB480BFD0A93@hserus.net>
References: <52F940DB.30304@gmail.com> <52F9D040.5010807@ITforChange.net>
 <10CF1287-3ABC-4ADD-8FAD-E646196F6F59@hserus.net> <19A25C5D27F24531B56185277A8CC00E@Toshiba>
 <5820C0BA-7728-4F9A-975A-EB480BFD0A93@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxh9orJp7Um0S34duoEYkLnETehRcVdLZtFtsANX-yppuA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> Well - two things.
>
> 1. The NSA / GCHQ etc activities in monitoring electronic intelligence
> have been known since at least the 80s,



right, this is in no way a "secret".



> with no shortage of spy novels (frederick forsyth's 'the fourth protocol'
> for example) giving several details that are, if anything, only being
> corroborated by the snowden exposes.  And in this atmosphere you had Postel
> and the others, you had ICANN, you had viable international
> multistakeholder cooperation across the board.  How or why does that change
> now because someone states the obvious with corroborating details?
>
> 2. Let many things pass / stay silent etc - then we get "nobody has
> responded to this, so I assume we have consensus".  Giving professional
> propagandists with a pernicious political  agenda the last word and
> suffering them to remain uncontradicted simply leaves them to declare a
> very public victory.




agreed.  Silence does not equal agreement.

On a related note, they may not have water and power much longer (ok,
actually very unlikley to happen)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/11/maryland-lawmakers-want-to-cut-water-electricity-to-nsa-headquarters/

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/fe346486/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From rguerra at privaterra.org  Tue Feb 11 09:28:17 2014
From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:28:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] [open-government] Turkish new internet censorship
 bill
In-Reply-To: <0bb701cf272a$35aacf10$a1006d30$@gmail.com>
References: <CAJhtavaZjxytJ=hT8YBtOGd51tZOksjDiFu74Dekzo8XHm_-8w@mail.gmail.com> <29D7ED6B-CA4B-44CB-A5DE-B1BC65873D00@lse.ac.uk> <0bb701cf272a$35aacf10$a1006d30$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <586656EF-3A09-4C07-965E-7B4DAB8587E3@privaterra.org>

Looks like there were no lessons learned from hosting the event in Azerbaijan. Curious if the IGF secretariat will share it’s security assessment... 

Other than Turkey, there was interest in having IGF 2014 being held in Iceland. Would have made a better choice IMHO..

Robert

On Feb 11, 2014, at 8:05 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the venue for the next IGF?
>  
> M
>  
> From: open-government [mailto:open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Izabela Correa
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:14 AM
> To: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list
> Cc: Open Government WG List
> Subject: [open-government] Turkish new internet censorship bill
>  
> Dear fellows
>  
> As some of you know, on the evening of 5 February 2014, the Turkish parliament voted into law a series of measures that will tighten government control over the Internet, give it unrestricted access to users’ online activities, and increase its ability to block online content arbitrarily. Given the political situation of the country, it's expected that, if turned into Law, such bill could cause major damages to the Turkish democracy. 
> 
> 
> In order to avoid such harm, an Avaaz petition has been written in order to urge President Abdullah Gül to veto the bill. Please, sign and share the petition to the biggest extent possible: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/President_Abdullah_Gul_of_Republic_of_Turkey_Veto_the_new_passed_Internet_Law/?aEWnUgb&mobile=1
> 
> 
> Kindest regards,
> Izabela Corrêa
> 
> 
> 
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer:http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/9dd0c4fa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 10:04:41 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:34:41 +0430
Subject: [governance] NETmundial co-chairs
In-Reply-To: <CADrRf+ctgJcETdUG2hJJK5P9gAPf6jcrW75MvkeEFTzZ2ds1ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp>
	<CAMz5XN4DYYJ-QshsbCYU4kug+u+X0M2C20gjuT1kpOGJvMQiLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADrRf+ctgJcETdUG2hJJK5P9gAPf6jcrW75MvkeEFTzZ2ds1ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtN7quv6aZ5b3WwdoBeu3PWA1pfR8HrKTd3iHig8pjNQXg@mail.gmail.com>

+1

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr
<langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent :-)
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  (CLO)
>  http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
>
>
> On 11 February 2014 23:49, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>> On 11 February 2014 07:17, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>> Congratulations to Jeanette in particular :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/02/10/netmundial-welcome-board-members/>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Tue Feb 11 10:56:05 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:56:05 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: [open-government] Turkish new internet
 censorship bill
In-Reply-To: <0bb701cf272a$35aacf10$a1006d30$@gmail.com>
References: <CAJhtavaZjxytJ=hT8YBtOGd51tZOksjDiFu74Dekzo8XHm_-8w@mail.gmail.com> <29D7ED6B-CA4B-44CB-A5DE-B1BC65873D00@lse.ac.uk> <0bb701cf272a$35aacf10$a1006d30$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52FA4815.1000202@acm.org>

Hi,

Indeed it is the site for the next IGF.

So as with Azerbaijan, we have to start thinking about how we will 
support the local issues as well as the global ones.  Our attention span 
isn't generally too long, except for some, but as long as in the year 
leading-up and the year following-after we need to keep setting the 
spotlight on these issues.

Thanks Michael.

avri


On 11-Feb-14 08:05, michael gurstein wrote:
> This is the venue for the next IGF?
>
> M
>
> *From:*open-government [mailto:open-government-bounces at lists.okfn.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Izabela Correa
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:14 AM
> *To:* Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list
> *Cc:* Open Government WG List
> *Subject:* [open-government] Turkish new internet censorship bill
>
> Dear fellows
>
> As some of you know, on the evening of 5 February 2014, the Turkish
> parliament voted into law a series of measures that will *tighten
> government control over the Internet, give it unrestricted access to
> users’ online activities, and increase its ability to block online
> content arbitrarily.* Given the political situation of the country, it's
> expected that, if turned into Law, such bill could cause major damages
> to the Turkish democracy.
>
>
>
> In order to avoid such harm, an Avaaz petition has been written in order
> to urge President Abdullah Gül to veto the bill. Please, sign and share
> the petition to the biggest extent possible:
> https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/President_Abdullah_Gul_of_Republic_of_Turkey_Veto_the_new_passed_Internet_Law/?aEWnUgb&mobile=1
>
>
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Izabela Corrêa
>
>
>
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From amedinagomez at gmail.com  Tue Feb 11 11:07:57 2014
From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:07:57 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NETmundial co-chairs
In-Reply-To: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAM-_sggOjbVMXp0bpjds3hZh7OAYjDLn6rwPY7OWnuoDBxMM0w@mail.gmail.com>

+1 Excellent news
Antonio Medina Gómez
Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet



2014-02-11 6:17 GMT-05:00 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:

> Congratulations to Jeanette in particular :-)
>
>
> <http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/02/10/netmundial-welcome-board-members/>
>
> Sao Paulo, February 10, 2014 - In alignment with the multistakeholder
> spirit of the meeting, the Chairman of the NETmundial, Professor Virgílio
> Fernandes Almeida, has invited distinguished names to co-chair and lead the
> NETmundial organization.
>
> From the academia, Jeanette Hofmann: an expert on internet governance,
> senior researcher at Social Science Research Center Berlin for Social
> Research (WZB), Research Officer at London School of Economics and
> Political Science, and also professor at Humboldt - University of Berlin.
>
> As part of the civil society, Subi Chaturvedi is an activist-academician,
> from Delhi University, and also an active research scholar at the Indian
> Institute of technology (IIT-D). As a media critic she writes extensively
> on best practices on Internet governance and the way forward through a
> bottoms up, inclusive, multistakeholder, approach to preserve core internet
> values.
>
> Representing the private sector, Andile Ngcaba is chairman, founder and
> majority shareholder of investment group Convergence Partners.
>
> Complementing the group and representing the technical community is Fadi
> Chehade, President and CEO of ICANN, that holds more than 25 years of
> experience in building and leading progressive Internet enterprises.
>
> Together, the multistakeholder chairmanship will ensure coordination among
> all the committees and the success of the conference. They will have their
> first meeting this Friday, February 14th, where they will discuss further
> coordination mechanisms, document drafting process, among other internal
> details.
>
> END
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/f368f0a5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From cafec3m at yahoo.fr  Tue Feb 11 12:20:56 2014
From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:20:56 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NETmundial co-chairs
In-Reply-To: <CAM-_sggOjbVMXp0bpjds3hZh7OAYjDLn6rwPY7OWnuoDBxMM0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp> <CAM-_sggOjbVMXp0bpjds3hZh7OAYjDLn6rwPY7OWnuoDBxMM0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1392139256.39654.YahooMailNeo@web28704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

+1 very good   


 
 
COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC
COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC
courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr/
+243 998983491



Le Mardi 11 février 2014 17h08, Antonio Medina Gómez <amedinagomez at gmail.com> a écrit :
 

+1 Excellent news
Antonio Medina Gómez
Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet




2014-02-11 6:17 GMT-05:00 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:

Congratulations to Jeanette in particular :-)
>
>
><http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/02/10/netmundial-welcome-board-members/>
>
>Sao Paulo, February 10, 2014 - In alignment with the multistakeholder spirit of the meeting, the Chairman of the NETmundial, Professor Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, has invited distinguished names to co-chair and lead the NETmundial organization.
>
>From the academia, Jeanette Hofmann: an expert on internet governance, senior researcher at Social Science Research Center Berlin for Social Research (WZB), Research Officer at London School of Economics and Political Science, and also professor at Humboldt - University of Berlin.
>
>As part of the civil society, Subi Chaturvedi is an activist-academician, from Delhi University, and also an active research scholar at the Indian Institute of technology (IIT-D). As a media critic she writes extensively on best practices on Internet governance and the way forward through a bottoms up, inclusive, multistakeholder, approach to preserve core internet values.
>
>Representing the private sector, Andile Ngcaba is chairman, founder and majority shareholder of investment group Convergence Partners.
>
>Complementing the group and representing the technical community is Fadi Chehade, President and CEO of ICANN, that holds more than 25 years of experience in building and leading progressive Internet enterprises.
>
>Together, the multistakeholder chairmanship will ensure coordination among all the committees and the success of the conference. They will have their first meeting this Friday, February 14th, where they will discuss further coordination mechanisms, document drafting process, among other internal details.
>
>END
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140211/c3bdc301/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kabani.asif at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 03:20:26 2014
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:20:26 +0500
Subject: [governance] NETmundial co-chairs
In-Reply-To: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAOzvoR1M9cfuhYdM3C9Na3MipnVNJp8rTETNXVazn+0SifmnGA@mail.gmail.com>

+1
Congratulations to Jeanette

-------
*Asif Kabani*
*Director*

*Skype: kabaniasif*

*To connect*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
 [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>

[image: www.slideshare.net.png]

http://www.slideshare.net/kabani

Towards A Sustainable Earth:  Print Only When Necessary

------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY:
This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be
confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please
delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.




On 11 February 2014 16:17, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Congratulations to Jeanette in particular :-)
>
>
> <http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/02/10/netmundial-welcome-board-members/>
>
> Sao Paulo, February 10, 2014 - In alignment with the multistakeholder
> spirit of the meeting, the Chairman of the NETmundial, Professor Virgílio
> Fernandes Almeida, has invited distinguished names to co-chair and lead the
> NETmundial organization.
>
> From the academia, Jeanette Hofmann: an expert on internet governance,
> senior researcher at Social Science Research Center Berlin for Social
> Research (WZB), Research Officer at London School of Economics and
> Political Science, and also professor at Humboldt - University of Berlin.
>
> As part of the civil society, Subi Chaturvedi is an activist-academician,
> from Delhi University, and also an active research scholar at the Indian
> Institute of technology (IIT-D). As a media critic she writes extensively
> on best practices on Internet governance and the way forward through a
> bottoms up, inclusive, multistakeholder, approach to preserve core internet
> values.
>
> Representing the private sector, Andile Ngcaba is chairman, founder and
> majority shareholder of investment group Convergence Partners.
>
> Complementing the group and representing the technical community is Fadi
> Chehade, President and CEO of ICANN, that holds more than 25 years of
> experience in building and leading progressive Internet enterprises.
>
> Together, the multistakeholder chairmanship will ensure coordination among
> all the committees and the success of the conference. They will have their
> first meeting this Friday, February 14th, where they will discuss further
> coordination mechanisms, document drafting process, among other internal
> details.
>
> END
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140212/aaea87e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Feb 12 04:54:16 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:24:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Shunned as NSA Advisers, Academics Question
 Their Ties to the Agency - Government - The Chronicle of Higher Education
In-Reply-To: <C0EF535D-CB3C-4ED8-ABC2-41FAD7427C70@gmail.com>
References: <C0EF535D-CB3C-4ED8-ABC2-41FAD7427C70@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <105001cf27d8$87666e50$96334af0$@gmail.com>



-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:23 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Shunned as NSA Advisers, Academics Question Their Ties to the Agency - Government - The Chronicle of Higher Education


http://chronicle.com/article/Shunned-as-NSA-Advisers/144639/?key=TT93JQU5ZXVNNns1YD4RYDxUa3BkN011Y3IeYyohbl5UFw== 

For decades, the National Security Agency’s main internal advisory board was rich with scientists from major research universities, helping the agency’s leaders keep American spies technologically a step ahead of their Cold War rivals.

Then, in the past dozen years or so, around the same time the NSA began its controversial wholesale collection of phone and computer data, the agency was quietly making another change: Replacing many of those academics with corporate advisers more steeped in the tactics of surveillance than in either basic science or overall strategies.

Now many academics are trying to be heard from the outside, arguing that the NSA’s spying tactics are proving counterproductive and that university researchers have a duty to stop assisting them.

"It is time to seriously consider the relationship that exists between academia and the NSA, both the potential for good and the need for caution," Stefan A. Forcey, an assistant professor of mathematics at the University of Akron, wrote last month in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society.
Enlarge Image
Pat Skorpinski
Edward Frenkel, a professor of mathematics at the U. of California at Berkeley, says his colleagues need to realize that “a mathematical formula could be just as powerful as a nuclear bomb.”
A few months before that, Alexander A. Beilinson, a professor of mathematics at the University of Chicago, suggested in the same publication that those working with the NSA should be ostracized, just as "working for the KGB was socially unacceptable for many in the Soviet Union."

Their appeals were followed on January 24 by an open letter from a group of 50 researchers warning of long-term damage to society and to the nation’s technological enterprise from the NSA’s reported tactic of intentionally weakening computer-security standards so it can carry out spy operations.

"Every country, including our own, must give intelligence and law-enforcement authorities the means to pursue terrorists and criminals," the researchers wrote, "but we can do so without fundamentally undermining the security that enables commerce, entertainment, personal communication, and other aspects of 21st-century life."

More Secrecy
>From almost the time the NSA was founded, in the early 1950s, the board that advised its director was dominated by academic stars from such institutions as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of Chicago.

That began shifting in the late 1990s, as the Internet rose in popularity. A series of intelligence failures exposed the NSA as too focused on intercepting satellite and radio signals, and insufficiently attuned to the growth of computer-based communications traveling in cables.

To catch up, the NSA turned to technology companies and other corporate experts, and to even greater levels of secrecy. In 2005, Congress formally renamed the NSA director’s National Security Agency Advisory Board the "Emerging Technologies Panel," and made its activities fully exempt from public-disclosure laws. Now its members aren’t publicly disclosed, although those inside and outside the NSA have said that academics have been left with a diminished role on the board.

An NSA spokeswoman, Vanee M. Vines, said that the board’s 18 members meet quarterly "to discuss a range of technical issues with agency leaders, offering critical insights or advice," but that she couldn’t identify the board’s current membership or agenda.

One of the few academics to publicly acknowledge recent participation on the panel is Philip J. Hanlon, president of Dartmouth College. He spent about 13 years on the board, until 2007, while a professor of mathematics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

He said he recalled the board’s transition as a move toward "nonscientific" advice, aimed more at "the running of the business."

John C. Inglis, who retired last month as the NSA’s deputy director, describes similar motivations, saying the NSA began choosing board members with an eye toward a specific expertise they could bring, in areas that could include human resources or communications. "While we certainly include them, no one from higher ed comes to mind" among the board's current membership, he said, "because our selections are based on expertise more than affiliation with some organization."

With fewer university advisers, the board may have lost some of the moderating influence that derives from a more holistic approach, said Matthew M. Aid, an author whose writings aim at illuminating the NSA. "Academics sort of look at the whole problem from top to bottom," he said.

It’s not just the advisory board that’s changed, Mr. Aid said. With the exception of the NSA’s current director, Keith B. Alexander, a four-star Army general, the agency’s top management corps for the past five or six years has consisted entirely of software engineers, Mr. Aid said. (Mr. Alexander is retiring in March, to be replaced by Michael S. Rogers, a vice admiral who leads the Navy’s Fleet Cyber Command.)

When that engineering-heavy leadership wants a formal review of a policy question or practice, Mr. Aid said, it tends to hire established Washington consultants, such as those from the RAND Corporation, rather than assign a team of academics, as it had in the past.

Power of Math
The shift away from academic expertise is especially worrisome to many mathematicians, for whom the NSA has long been their field’s single largest employer outside education. In the months since Edward J. Snowden fled the United States with tens of thousands of electronic documents describing NSA practices, mathematicians are realizing that they are in the same position as nuclear physicists in the middle of the last century, and business students in more recent times—suddenly needing to figure out the ethics behind what they do, said Edward Frenkel, a professor of mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley.

"Our community has been behind the curve," Mr. Frenkel said, along with much of the world, in not fully appreciating that "in the 21st century, a mathematical formula could be just as powerful as a nuclear bomb."

According to one set of reports tied to the Snowden documents, the NSA made arrangements with RSA, a leading computer-security firm, to insert a flaw into its formula for generating random numbers associated with widely used encryption products. Other reports describe the NSA as persuading the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal agency that sets U.S. encryption standards, to select security formulas that the NSA would be able to decipher.

For scientists and for the country as a whole, such security strategies are self-defeating in the long run, said Joan Feigenbaum, a professor of computer science at Yale University, who helped organize last month’s protest letter by 50 senior experts in cryptography and computer science.

That kind of tactic has already backfired elsewhere, she said. Reported instances include wiretapping capabilities that were built into the phone network of Greece, only to be exploited by an unknown perpetrator who eavesdropped on calls involving top government leaders.

Ms. Feigenbaum said she expected governments to conduct surveillance operations. When they follow proper procedures, such as obtaining warrants from courts, however, secret backdoor entries into systems shouldn’t be necessary, she said.

Student Training
The concern among researchers is growing at the same time that the NSA is finding a more receptive audience in other quarters of universities. The agency, structurally an arm of the Department of Defense, leads two Pentagon-affiliated research facilities on university campuses: one at the University of Maryland at College Park, which studies language and human cognition, and the other at the Stevens Institute of Technology, focused on systems engineering.

And more than 100 universities, eager to offer their students career opportunities, now participate in a program through which the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security certify them as Centers of Academic Excellence for teaching courses in subjects that include computer science and electrical engineering.

One institution pursuing that certification, Excelsior College, last month opened a National Cybersecurity Institute in Washington. The facility is little more than a TV studio and conference room in an office building a few blocks from the White House, where the college, an online institution based in New York, hopes to use government experts from the NSA and other security agencies to supplement its expanding menu of courses in cybersecurity.

Information security is one of the nation’s fastest-growing job categories, with employment expected to increase by 37 percent in the decade ending in 2022, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported. Excelsior’s president, John F. Ebersole, a Vietnam veteran and retired Coast Guard commander, said his college is among many moving aggressively into the field.

The Snowden scandal did give Excelsior leaders "quite a lot" to consider just as they were preparing the initiative, such as whether the NSA’s actions had been "ethical and appropriate, particularly as it concerns other countries and leaders," Mr. Ebersole said. In the end, the college concluded that the disclosures amounted largely to embarrassment, as the NSA had not been formally found to have violated any laws, he said.

Even universities and researchers that aren’t interested in dealing directly with the NSA or doing classified work may be helping out, Mr. Hanlon said. That’s because the NSA often will try to "extract the mathematical question out of their problem," widening the pool of university researchers who could work on it without getting involved in classified details, he said.

Leading areas of research include number theory, which is a source for encryption protocols; the development of algorithms and processes to more efficiently map and sort large amounts of data; the development of faster computers and better storage systems; and the testing of computer vulnerabilities.

Research Funding
The NSA has extensive ties to the American Mathematical Society, using it to directly recruit workers for sabbaticals at the agency, and to help the agency finance college math programs and researchers in general.

The mathematical society also administers the distribution of research grants financed by both the NSA and the National Science Foundation. The foundation, which makes its budget information public, says its Division of Mathematical Sciences has an annual budget of about $240-million.

The NSA grants refereed by the society "are similar to NSF ones, but smaller, and there are more of them," Mr. Beilinson said.

Joseph L. Hall, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit advocacy group, said there is widespread suspicion that the two agencies coordinate so that NSF grant requests help further NSA goals.

The science foundation, for its part, emphasizes its independence. It isn’t opposed to the reuse of NSF-financed research for NSA activities, said Aaron Dubrow, a foundation spokesman, but it doesn’t actively seek or take guidance from the security agency.

The NSA may have other ways of using universities to further its agenda. The Johns Hopkins University, a leading recipient of classified-research dollars, made headlines last year when it asked Matthew D. Green, an assistant research professor of computer science, to remove a blog posting that referred to news articles about leaked NSA documents concerning encryption technologies.

Mr. Green, who was later allowed to repost the item, said he is among those waiting for university researchers to reassess their ties to the NSA. "I know a lot of computer scientists who are upset about the NSA revelations," he said. "But I haven’t seen any of this break out into a more coherent national debate."



-------------------------------------------
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=22720195-8fdd4308
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20140211085337:F44FD518-9323-11E3-AAAB-CF439A7294FE
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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Wed Feb 12 10:05:38 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:05:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet
 Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
 Governance"
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+abOXBdkOcVTynxw4YmK9pXd6NKgEWPV7VTe2SMk+Z2Cw@mail.gmail.com>

[ Apologies for cross-posting. Please share as you deem appropriate ]

Dear all,

I would like to let you know that today (12 February 2013) the European
Commission has adopted its formal policy position on Internet governance,
via a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "Internet
Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
governance" (COM(2014) 72/4).

The press release of the adoption is available at
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm .

The text of the Communication is available at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453.

The statement by Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission
and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, is available at
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325 .

I hope you find this information useful and the content of the
Communication interesting.

Best,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140212/527ed11e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Wed Feb 12 10:39:24 2014
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:39:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet
 Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
 Governance"
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+abOXBdkOcVTynxw4YmK9pXd6NKgEWPV7VTe2SMk+Z2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOLD2+abOXBdkOcVTynxw4YmK9pXd6NKgEWPV7VTe2SMk+Z2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPqXojLJbx1wzJWF1+_3aBjeYzRW+d7jQjTeF8hjbDhbJGhr=w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Andrea Glorios,
this sounds really good. Does this imply that relevant and extensive
negotiations like TTIP, which have a digital dimension, would also be more
transparent and participative from the multistakeholder perspective?
Does the Commission have a position on that? Transparency and
inaccessibility have been key criticisms during the latest months and
European NGOs, as well as academia will certainly welcome more openness in
this respect.
Best regards,
Lorena Jaume-Palasí

2014-02-12 16:05 GMT+01:00 Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it>:

> [ Apologies for cross-posting. Please share as you deem appropriate ]
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to let you know that today (12 February 2013) the European
> Commission has adopted its formal policy position on Internet governance,
> via a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
> Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "Internet
> Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
> governance" (COM(2014) 72/4).
>
> The press release of the adoption is available at
> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm .
>
> The text of the Communication is available at
> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453.
>
> The statement by Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission
> and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, is available at
> http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325 .
>
> I hope you find this information useful and the content of the
> Communication interesting.
>
> Best,
>
> Andrea
>
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep
> it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance
(GIG) Ohu
 Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
www.collaboratory.de *
Newsletter<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>
 * Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> * Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> *
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140212/c6d3ddc9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Feb 12 10:54:32 2014
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:54:32 +0800
Subject: [governance] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet
 Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
 Governance"
In-Reply-To: <CAPqXojLJbx1wzJWF1+_3aBjeYzRW+d7jQjTeF8hjbDhbJGhr=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOLD2+abOXBdkOcVTynxw4YmK9pXd6NKgEWPV7VTe2SMk+Z2Cw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPqXojLJbx1wzJWF1+_3aBjeYzRW+d7jQjTeF8hjbDhbJGhr=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3B04DE0B-8297-4A41-BB05-CE4808DCEACF@ciroap.org>

On 12 Feb 2014, at 11:39 pm, Lorena Jaume-Palasi <lorena at collaboratory.de> wrote:

> Dear Andrea Glorios,
> this sounds really good. Does this imply that relevant and extensive negotiations like TTIP, which have a digital dimension, would also be more transparent and participative from the multistakeholder perspective? 
> Does the Commission have a position on that? Transparency and inaccessibility have been key criticisms during the latest months and European NGOs, as well as academia will certainly welcome more openness in this respect.

Very good question.  Thanks Lorena - and thanks Andrea.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights

@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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140212/d7c33b8d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140212/d7c33b8d/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 12 11:04:25 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:04:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] CNNIC's Face Recognition Solution Won "Intelligence
 Beijing" Prize for Excellent Solutions
References:  <CAJhtavaZjxytJ=hT8YBtOGd51tZOksjDiFu74Dekzo8XHm_-8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <29D7ED6B-CA4B-44CB-A5DE-B1BC65873D00@lse.ac.uk>
 <0bb701cf272a$35aacf10$a1006d30$@gmail.com> <52FA4815.1000202@acm.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801641FC8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI
 
http://www1.cnnic.cn/AU/MediaC/rdxw/hotnews/201312/t20131225_43557.htm
 
wolfgang
 
 

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From marie.georges at noos.fr  Wed Feb 12 15:28:23 2014
From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:28:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] CNNIC's Face Recognition Solution Won
 "Intelligence Beijing" Prize for Excellent Solutions
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801641FC8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAJhtavaZjxytJ=hT8YBtOGd51tZOksjDiFu74Dekzo8XHm_-8w@mail.gmail.com> <29D7ED6B-CA4B-44CB-A5DE-B1BC65873D00@lse.ac.uk> <0bb701cf272a$35aacf10$a1006d30$@gmail.com> <52FA4815.1000202@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801641FC8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <F73BDEB9-9594-4205-889A-F0134BC565D7@noos.fr>

Hi Wolfgang,
 You like this prize? 

Does the Governance list feels concerned by biometrics?  Good idea....
best
Marie


Le 12 févr. 2014 à 17:04, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :

> FYI
> 
> http://www1.cnnic.cn/AU/MediaC/rdxw/hotnews/201312/t20131225_43557.htm
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Feb 12 15:45:31 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:15:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>
	<CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>
	<044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
	<965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>
	<062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHBpqs0ZgaVVd405gc9UP6gy=09GnNfdidebtrztWA2Y=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDjguukoDv5iDugZKOofw3dBtY5U7vDdxuHCMSzXSkewA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

As I had promised, I asked Adiel to shed further light on the financing of
the website/forum and the summary. Please find my email, and Adiel's
detailed reply below. I have asked him to further clarify who the "some of
us" are who wrote the second summary he refers to, but in the interest of
time thought I'll share the below response with you already. I hope this
answers many of the questions that were raised.

Best wishes,
Anja

On 12 February 2014 02:21, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Hello Anja,
>
> On 2014-02-11, at 01:59 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for all the ongoing work on the website and the transformation of
> the summaries on the forum. These are important and positive steps in
> responding to some of the questions and criticisms that have been raised.
> >
> > Within civil society, some people have been wondering, though, how the
> work for both is being funded, and also who exactly is doing it. I think
> these are fair enough questions, and that it would be important to provide
> an answer to them as part of our efforts to improve transparency.
> >
> > Adiel, could you therefore clarify who exactly prepared the summary (I
> had presumed it was you but my apologies if I was wrong!), and how this was
> supported financially, if at all? Similarly for the website, who designed
> and developed it, and where did the idea for a forum come from? And how
> was/is the website funded?
> >
> > I think it is valuable for the members of the SC as well to have a bit
> more of a sense of these issues. My apologies if you already clarified this
> in the first part of the call last week, but if not, it would be great if
> you could do so here.
>
>
> Thanks for your email which has some fair and reasonable questions.
>
> To start, I would like to reinsure you and all form the Civil Society that
> this is and has always been a collective effort to move /1net from just a
> mailing list into something more coherent and structured.
>
> The goal of course is to have the participants organise themselves and
> make /1net what it should be by identifying issues and work together to
> collectively find solutions and/or ideas. But as with anything in life, and
> particularly in self organised environment there is always work to be done
> behind the scenes to ensure that the momentum is kept, and it is perfectly
> reasonable for people to request who is doing that. But at the same time
> people should remember where the whole initiative started from (and it
> seems to me like people suddenly decide to forget it).
>
> The short answer is that there have been two main contributions: that of
> time and of finances. Time has of course come from a wide range of
> participants but in terms of organisational effort much of it has come from
> individuals within some of the I* organisations that signed the Montevideo
> Declaration (particularly AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, RIPE-NCC and ICANN).
>
> The unseen work of /1net to date such as organising meetings, setting up
> mailing lists, registering domains, setting up the website have been done
> by a range of different staff in those organisations. For example, AFRINIC
> as NRO secretariat ran the first mailing list, and we use AFRINIC's web
> conferencing facilities to have calls and coordinate that, RIPE-NCC staff
> work with the hosting company on the transfer of the mailing list from
> nor.net to 1net.org, AFRINIC staff has developed the mailing list
> statistic tools and currently helping with some of the logistic of the
> steering committee all of that voluntarily as part of their job in our
> different organisations. If you look at the Whois for 1net.org you will
> see that AFRINIC took over the domain after the first launch of the web
> site (I am the individual officially named as the registrant) and ICANN is
> the tech administrator. I have been using my time to coordinate the web
> site evolution with a team made of staff of a web hosting company and
> ICANN's communication staff, but they don't do anything that has not been
> approved by myself. They have also implemented the new forum which, some
> within the volunteers I* organisations and others in the broader Internet
> community offered to help road-test before it was officially launched. I
> have been having a weekly coordination meeting with them after the first
> launch (where there was some technical IPv6 and DNSSEC and other issues
> which I and others worked on with them to fix). The cost of hosting the web
> site and its development is currently provided by ICANN.
>
> Gradually coordinating the work behind the scene on these aspects is being
> transitioned to the Steering Committee whose representatives have been
> chosen by different stakeholder groups themselves. For example, the
> Steering Committee also was provided with a link to test out the forum and
> the new web site a few days before it went live so they could provide
> feedback. That will be the systematic approach going forward.
>
> In terms of the summaries produced, there have been two. Staff at APNIC
> produced the first, giving a statistical analysis of discussions on the
> mailing list. That was well received and at the same time many participants
> made it clear they were having troubling following events so consensus was
> quickly reached that a summary of content would be useful. The Steering
> Committee agreed so we moved ahead. The second summary was a collaboration
> of a number of us, most of whom had helped with previous /1net efforts. But
> I had the final sign-off (and I shared a version with the SC). As I
> mentioned  on the mailing list this is an attempt to help, and nothing in
> the summary is to be considered conclusive so can be challenged by anyone
> if the find it inaccurate. I have also heard the suggestion on the list to
> have a collaborative editing platform to produce the summary. My idea is
> still to have a draft that people will play around with. I'm not sure just
> letting the group as I see it developing every summary from scratch will
> work effectively (my personal view).
>
> Going forward, we will continue to have have the automated mailing list
> reports and possibly weekly summaries, depending on whether the lists
> themselves show the ability to self-summarise.
>
> As proposed last week and discussed during the last conference call, I
> think the Steering Committee need to organise itself to take over these
> tasks starting with the Communications and Community engagement group. The
> idea seems to have the support of the Steering Committee last week. So that
> is a positive and important step. The team is expected to be comprised of a
> number of professional communicators and Steering Committee members. The
> members aren't decided yet but we'll announce them once they are.
>
> My expectation is that the communications team will make recommendations
> to the Steering Committee about the things you reference: summaries,
> website and so on. And it will be up to the Steering Committee to decide
> how to proceed.
>
> While here, there are two other things I would like to bring your
> attention. Firstly, all efforts behind the scenes are focused on how to
> assist participants in arriving at solutions to issues that are identified
> by participants themselves. It is a true support role in that respect.
> Nothing else. As you may have noticed I ahve refrain myself posting
> directly on some of the issues being discussed not to be seen as directing
> the debate or having any particular hidden agenda. I have heard enough!
>
> Secondly, while some of us from the I* organisations have shouldered much
> of the cost in terms of both time and money of /1net so far, the intention
> going forward is for many other organisations to contribute to get this
> running. The initiative can not sustain itself without all these
> contributions.
>
> At the moment we are focussed on preparations for the Brazil meeting but
> soon after that, we hope that /1net will have provided sufficient value and
> worth that others are keen to support this initiative going forward.
>
> I hope that answers all your questions. If you or others have ideas,
> suggestions, offers of help and so on I would be happy to hear them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> - a.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Steercom mailing list
> Steercom at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/steercom
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project





On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Tks Anja... I'll look forward to hearing back concerning the set of
> questions that I posed either from you or directly from responsible others
> in 1Net.
>
>
>
> It would be good to put this matter to rest sooner rather than later.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:31 AM
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC; &lt,
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process
> for 1Net
>
>
>
> Hi Michael and all,
>
> Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more about
> how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were shared
> with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my
> knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation
> until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how
> to improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have
> been requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a
> user to interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for
> that particular user the experience would actually not be very different
> than it is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the
> weeks to come.
>
> Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be
> more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning
> of 1Net (certainly by myself).
>
>
>
> My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time)
> in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward
> 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful
> response.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process
> for 1Net
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation
> that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil
> meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the
> crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to
> inclusions and exclusions.
>
>
>
>             I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and
> accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a
> positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger
> amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this
> point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do
> with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy
> outcomes of that, and future, events.
>
>             Regards
>
>
>
>                         David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140213/fdb6817b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Thu Feb 13 03:13:36 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:13:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet
 Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
 Governance"
In-Reply-To: <CAPqXojLJbx1wzJWF1+_3aBjeYzRW+d7jQjTeF8hjbDhbJGhr=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOLD2+abOXBdkOcVTynxw4YmK9pXd6NKgEWPV7VTe2SMk+Z2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPqXojLJbx1wzJWF1+_3aBjeYzRW+d7jQjTeF8hjbDhbJGhr=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+YOfPASbPq5eVnqErFC3tSZ5+BqM8d8nsVsWaUjX4_cSQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Lorena,

(Andrea will be just fine)

as you have asked the position of the European Commission on TTIP
(therefore I assume you are not interested in my personal wishes or
opinions) and I do not directly work on it, I took the liberty to relay
your question to the colleagues who are more directly involved. I will
strive to answer your question as soon as possible.

Please feel free to raise any other question, issue or suggestion you might
have. I might even be able to answer you directly, without going
back-and-forth between colleagues. ;)

Best,

Andrea


On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi <
lorena at collaboratory.de> wrote:

> Dear Andrea Glorios,
> this sounds really good. Does this imply that relevant and extensive
> negotiations like TTIP, which have a digital dimension, would also be more
> transparent and participative from the multistakeholder perspective?
> Does the Commission have a position on that? Transparency and
> inaccessibility have been key criticisms during the latest months and
> European NGOs, as well as academia will certainly welcome more openness in
> this respect.
> Best regards,
> Lorena Jaume-Palasí
>
> 2014-02-12 16:05 GMT+01:00 Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it>:
>
>> [ Apologies for cross-posting. Please share as you deem appropriate ]
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I would like to let you know that today (12 February 2013) the European
>> Commission has adopted its formal policy position on Internet governance,
>> via a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
>> Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "Internet
>> Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
>> governance" (COM(2014) 72/4).
>>
>> The press release of the adoption is available at
>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm .
>>
>> The text of the Communication is available at
>> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453.
>>
>> The statement by Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission
>> and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, is available at
>> http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325 .
>>
>> I hope you find this information useful and the content of the
>> Communication interesting.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>> --
>> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep
>> it in mind.
>> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance
> (GIG) Ohu
>  Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
> www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>
>  * Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> * Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> *
> <http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
>



-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140213/fd982027/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 03:57:41 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:27:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: Are you going to dotNeighborhoods: Creating
 Bottom-up Media In ALL New York City's Neighborhoods tomorrow?
In-Reply-To: <z125ivwhznmfhxspj04celromz2pungznos0k@plus.google.com>
References: <z125ivwhznmfhxspj04celromz2pungznos0k@plus.google.com>
Message-ID: <000001cf2899$abb35e00$031a1a00$@gmail.com>

Tom Lowenhaupt: TLD's for the common good.

 

M

 

From: Google+ [mailto:noreply-b49e31b at plus.google.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:39 AM
To: gurstein at gmail.com
Subject: Are you going to dotNeighborhoods: Creating Bottom-up Media In ALL
New York City's Neighborhoods tomorrow?

 



 
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2Fevents%2Fcusnlv1s7ma29kvfd6l7d2rldvk&dt
=1392239360089&ub=43> dotNeighborhoods: Creating Bottom-up Media In ALL New
York City's Neighborhoods

 
<https://ssl.gstatic.com/s2/oz/images/notifications/logo/google-plus-6617a72
bb36cc548861652780c9e6ff1.png> 



 
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2F107114190098481725633&dt=1392239360089&
ub=43> 

Are you going to
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2Fevents%2Fcusnlv1s7ma29kvfd6l7d2rldvk&dt
=1392239360089&ub=43> dotNeighborhoods: Creating Bottom-up Media In ALL New
York City's Neighborhoods tomorrow?

  <https://ssl.gstatic.com/s2/oz/images/notifications/events-time.png> Thu,
February 13, 4:00 PM EST

Are you going?

 
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2Fevents%2Fcusnlv1s7ma29kvfd6l7d2rldvk%2F
rsvp%2FCNuOlPaj1P_bgwE%2FATTENDING&dt=1392239360089&ub=43> Yes
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2Fevents%2Fcusnlv1s7ma29kvfd6l7d2rldvk%2F
rsvp%2FCNuOlPaj1P_bgwE%2FMAYBE&dt=1392239360089&ub=43> Maybe
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2Fevents%2Fcusnlv1s7ma29kvfd6l7d2rldvk%2F
rsvp%2FCNuOlPaj1P_bgwE%2FNOT_ATTENDING&dt=1392239360089&ub=43> No

 
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2Fevents%2Fcusnlv1s7ma29kvfd6l7d2rldvk&dt
=1392239360089&ub=43> View Invitation


 
<https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-2aAqGpth_0U/Uvp6SJ7itjI/AAAAAAAAAAA/d3cO
QYNGX6U/w698/event_theme.jpg> 



 
<https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-BnTGqPGA1eQ/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/5CbF
y-q8DNY/w32-h32-p-a/photo.jpg> 

 
<https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-LWlI9_5cgHw/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/Znsa
Cjx9T3Y/w32-h32-p-a/photo.jpg> 

 
<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QAVnk9E_jO8/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/PWAI
hR9Fj74/w32-h32-p-a/photo.jpg> 

Lauren Lowenhaupt
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2F106367158985045135880&dt=1392239360089&
ub=43> , Beth Noveck
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2F106029430939685924043&dt=1392239360089&
ub=43> , Wilson Abigaba
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2F105769493923520968196&dt=1392239360089&
ub=43>  and 134 more are invited

New York City is moving ahead with the development of its top level domain
(.nyc) and has not yet decided who gets what name. Here we'll explain why,
how, and to whom neighborhood names should be given. Think Astoria.nyc,
Bensonhurst.nyc, Corona.nyc, Douglaston.nyc, Elmhurst.nyc, Flatbush.nyc,
GreenwichVillage.nyc, Harlem.nyc, etc.

This notification was sent to gurstein at gmail.com; Go to your
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2Fsettings%2Fplus&dt=1392239360089&ub=43>
notification delivery settings to update your address.
<https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/emlink?emr=05816980964786539593&emi
d=CLjYj-S_x7wCFa3wNAoduFkAAA&path=%2Fsettings%2Fplus&dt=1392239360089&ub=43>
Manage subscriptions to change what emails you receive from Google+.

Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043 USA

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140213/78d546c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 03:57:48 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:27:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] UN: Don't Overlook Access to Information in Goal on
 Governance
Message-ID: <000601cf2899$d0580350$710809f0$@gmail.com>

A call for access to information as a target in the post2015 framework.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/feb
/11/un-information-sdg-accountability-development



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Thu Feb 13 06:33:32 2014
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:33:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet
 Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
 Governance"
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+YOfPASbPq5eVnqErFC3tSZ5+BqM8d8nsVsWaUjX4_cSQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOLD2+abOXBdkOcVTynxw4YmK9pXd6NKgEWPV7VTe2SMk+Z2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPqXojLJbx1wzJWF1+_3aBjeYzRW+d7jQjTeF8hjbDhbJGhr=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOLD2+YOfPASbPq5eVnqErFC3tSZ5+BqM8d8nsVsWaUjX4_cSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPqXoj+u=iPeF5W9tAo4svt=GydugQBXAHJKy37yXMaPC2LuYQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Andrea,
many thanks for forwarding my question and the update. If you also have a
personal opinion I am interested in reading it too, since you may possibly
have some insights I do not have ;)
Looking also forward to reading the official response of the COM and with
best regards,
Lorena

2014-02-13 9:13 GMT+01:00 Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it>:

> Dear Lorena,
>
> (Andrea will be just fine)
>
> as you have asked the position of the European Commission on TTIP
> (therefore I assume you are not interested in my personal wishes or
> opinions) and I do not directly work on it, I took the liberty to relay
> your question to the colleagues who are more directly involved. I will
> strive to answer your question as soon as possible.
>
> Please feel free to raise any other question, issue or suggestion you
> might have. I might even be able to answer you directly, without going
> back-and-forth between colleagues. ;)
>
> Best,
>
> Andrea
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi <
> lorena at collaboratory.de> wrote:
>
>> Dear Andrea Glorios,
>> this sounds really good. Does this imply that relevant and extensive
>> negotiations like TTIP, which have a digital dimension, would also be more
>> transparent and participative from the multistakeholder perspective?
>> Does the Commission have a position on that? Transparency and
>> inaccessibility have been key criticisms during the latest months and
>> European NGOs, as well as academia will certainly welcome more openness in
>> this respect.
>> Best regards,
>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí
>>
>> 2014-02-12 16:05 GMT+01:00 Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it>:
>>
>>> [ Apologies for cross-posting. Please share as you deem appropriate ]
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I would like to let you know that today (12 February 2013) the European
>>> Commission has adopted its formal policy position on Internet governance,
>>> via a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
>>> Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "Internet
>>> Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
>>> governance" (COM(2014) 72/4).
>>>
>>> The press release of the adoption is available at
>>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm .
>>>
>>> The text of the Communication is available at
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453.
>>>
>>> The statement by Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission
>>> and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, is available at
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325 .
>>>
>>> I hope you find this information useful and the content of the
>>> Communication interesting.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>> --
>>> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep
>>> it in mind.
>>> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
>>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet
>> Governance (GIG) Ohu
>>  Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
>> www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>
>>  * Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> * Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> *
>> <http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
>> Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep
> it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
>



-- 
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance
(GIG) Ohu
 Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
www.collaboratory.de *
Newsletter<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>
 * Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> * Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> *
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140213/17f8fd92/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 16:21:53 2014
From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 01:21:53 +0400
Subject: [governance] World Press Freedom Index 2014
Message-ID: <CAPVtaumvPvDx1j3FGQMiTwsUoLFzri-Y2OExFvE37abBujtVaw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,



World press freedom index 2014 <http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php> ,
Reporters Without Borders


*Biggest rises and falls in the 2014 World Press Freedom Index*


Methodology

Download pdf (450Kb)<http://rsf.org/index2014/data/2014_wpfi_methodology.pdf>

Download the map <http://rsf.org/index2014/data/carte2014_en.png>

Download the index <http://rsf.org/index2014/data/index2.csv>

Narine Khachatryan
Media Education Center, Armenia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/81f20e9b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Feb 13 18:38:25 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:38:25 -0500
Subject: [governance] Video from UK IGF
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3pJ5icsSzfc8dA+CnTdjbxnY7JOOfytOrCN66Bj1Vwsw@mail.gmail.com>

I have posted a couple of clips of video I captured from today's UK IGF
webex

1)  Panel discussion -- What is your vision for governance of the internet?
(Conclusion)
http://youtu.be/0rV9skuJOBI


2) Hon Ed Vaizey MP, Minister for Culture, Communications and the Creative
Industries + Alun Cairns MP
http://youtu.be/Bo8OOvxvO3s


There is more to come

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140213/6439bea4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Thu Feb 13 21:29:58 2014
From: avri at acm.org (avri)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:29:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] Except from an IETF list message
Message-ID: <1wuk8vr784yg5f9b3k6vgypr.1392344998059@email.android.com>

On the practical side and having nothing to do with Brazil, Geneva or Istanbul meetings:

If anyone from CS is looking to get involved in IETF WGs representing privacy and other human rights concerns, but wants a guide to the workings etc of ietf and its WGs, let me know as I am always happy to help people cross the CS - Tech barrier.

In addition to the efforts listed below there is also an opportunity to review existing RFCs for privacy and  pervasive monitoring vulnerabilities.  If you are interested in this kind of activity let me know as we are organizing a project for doing this sort of thing. 

avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
 
The situation is complex.  There is not a unified technical community, and there is not a unified policy community.

Let's look at three real world projects that  going on right now.  These are just examples off the top of my head.


(1) PAWS (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/paws/charter/)

I really hope that the result of this working group is able to make television whitespace available for data all over the world.  This cannot be successful unless the spectrum regulatory bodies are engaged in the process.  The FCC was the first to engage, and the first versions of the specifications seem to meet their needs, and then OFCOM provided some comments that caused a complete redesign.  I hope others engage very soon so that a global solution is possible.


(2) ECRIT (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/charter/)

I really hope that the result of this working group is able to specify emergency service access on a global scale from every mobile VoIP device.  One challenge is that many governments can reference IETF standards in their regulations.  This could lead to interoperability problems.

(3) STIR (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/stir/charter/)

I really hope that the result of this working group make it more difficult for  robocalling, vishing, and swatting all over the world.


In each of these examples, a different portion of the policy community needs to participate.  I believe they have been invited to do so.  I do not know if they will.

Russ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140213/85206127/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Feb 13 22:18:35 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:18:35 +1200
Subject: [governance] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet
 Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
 Governance"
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+abOXBdkOcVTynxw4YmK9pXd6NKgEWPV7VTe2SMk+Z2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOLD2+abOXBdkOcVTynxw4YmK9pXd6NKgEWPV7VTe2SMk+Z2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCJ7oZQ9M+B6NRzajgz9hdLABiyRHu0xDqAWFACYdKPCA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

No doubt, most of you would have seen this already but just for the sake of
some who may not have seen it. The NTIA's response to the Commission's
Statement is copied here:

Source: http://t.co/IeDMfd07yH

*Quote Starts*
Statement of Assistant Secretary Strickling on the European Commission
Statement on Internet Governance
Topics:

   - Internet Policy <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internet-policy>

[image: Printer-friendly version]Printer-friendly
version<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/press-release/2014/statement-assistant-secretary-strickling-european-commission-statement-internet-g>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 12, 2014
News Media Contact:
Juliana Gruenwald, (202) 482-2145, jgruenwald at ntia.doc.gov


Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the European
Commission statement on Internet governance:

"The U.S. government welcomes the strong and continued commitment of the
European Commission to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.
We will work with the Commission and other Internet stakeholders to make
multistakeholder governance more inclusive, especially to support the
engagement of countries in the developing world.  We have long encouraged
the further globalization of ICANN as reflected in our work the last five
years to improve the accountability and transparency of ICANN to all
nations and stakeholders."


*Quote Ends*


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it>wrote:

> [ Apologies for cross-posting. Please share as you deem appropriate ]
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to let you know that today (12 February 2013) the European
> Commission has adopted its formal policy position on Internet governance,
> via a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
> Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "Internet
> Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
> governance" (COM(2014) 72/4).
>
> The press release of the adoption is available at
> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm .
>
> The text of the Communication is available at
> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453.
>
> The statement by Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission
> and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, is available at
> http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325 .
>
> I hope you find this information useful and the content of the
> Communication interesting.
>
> Best,
>
> Andrea
>
> --
> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep
> it in mind.
> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/d0fc2999/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Feb 14 01:26:10 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:56:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDjguukoDv5iDugZKOofw3dBtY5U7vDdxuHCMSzXSkewA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>
	<CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>
	<044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>
	<965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>
	<062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHBpqs0ZgaVVd405gc9UP6gy=09GnNfdidebtrztWA2Y=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHDjguukoDv5iDugZKOofw3dBtY5U7vDdxuHCMSzXSkewA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDequ4A0f6F_npdkCdOXMJ3EVDuhJhsDzfYQLnOAPQKCw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Following up on my earlier email, I also wanted to share with you Adiel's
response to my additional queries regarding who wrote the summary. Please
find our exchange below this message.

Best,
Anja

On 13 February 2014 15:01, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:

On 2014-02-13, at 24:27 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> The second summary was a collaboration of a number of us, most of whom
had helped with previous /1net efforts.
>
> [AK]: As this was one of the questions specifically asked, could you
please clarify who the "number of us" were? In particular, was this a
subgroup from the SC or were there others also involved?

Hello Anja, there was staff from our various organisations including
myself, they don't want to be listed so label all on just me if the "Who"
here matter that much. I'm taking the full responsibility of it.

Thanks and hope that will help.

- a.







On 13 February 2014 02:15, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As I had promised, I asked Adiel to shed further light on the financing of
> the website/forum and the summary. Please find my email, and Adiel's
> detailed reply below. I have asked him to further clarify who the "some of
> us" are who wrote the second summary he refers to, but in the interest of
> time thought I'll share the below response with you already. I hope this
> answers many of the questions that were raised.
>
> Best wishes,
> Anja
>
> On 12 February 2014 02:21, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello Anja,
>>
>> On 2014-02-11, at 01:59 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for all the ongoing work on the website and the transformation
>> of the summaries on the forum. These are important and positive steps in
>> responding to some of the questions and criticisms that have been raised.
>> >
>> > Within civil society, some people have been wondering, though, how the
>> work for both is being funded, and also who exactly is doing it. I think
>> these are fair enough questions, and that it would be important to provide
>> an answer to them as part of our efforts to improve transparency.
>> >
>> > Adiel, could you therefore clarify who exactly prepared the summary (I
>> had presumed it was you but my apologies if I was wrong!), and how this was
>> supported financially, if at all? Similarly for the website, who designed
>> and developed it, and where did the idea for a forum come from? And how
>> was/is the website funded?
>> >
>> > I think it is valuable for the members of the SC as well to have a bit
>> more of a sense of these issues. My apologies if you already clarified this
>> in the first part of the call last week, but if not, it would be great if
>> you could do so here.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your email which has some fair and reasonable questions.
>>
>> To start, I would like to reinsure you and all form the Civil Society
>> that this is and has always been a collective effort to move /1net from
>> just a mailing list into something more coherent and structured.
>>
>> The goal of course is to have the participants organise themselves and
>> make /1net what it should be by identifying issues and work together to
>> collectively find solutions and/or ideas. But as with anything in life, and
>> particularly in self organised environment there is always work to be done
>> behind the scenes to ensure that the momentum is kept, and it is perfectly
>> reasonable for people to request who is doing that. But at the same time
>> people should remember where the whole initiative started from (and it
>> seems to me like people suddenly decide to forget it).
>>
>> The short answer is that there have been two main contributions: that of
>> time and of finances. Time has of course come from a wide range of
>> participants but in terms of organisational effort much of it has come from
>> individuals within some of the I* organisations that signed the Montevideo
>> Declaration (particularly AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, RIPE-NCC and ICANN).
>>
>> The unseen work of /1net to date such as organising meetings, setting up
>> mailing lists, registering domains, setting up the website have been done
>> by a range of different staff in those organisations. For example, AFRINIC
>> as NRO secretariat ran the first mailing list, and we use AFRINIC's web
>> conferencing facilities to have calls and coordinate that, RIPE-NCC staff
>> work with the hosting company on the transfer of the mailing list from
>> nor.net to 1net.org, AFRINIC staff has developed the mailing list
>> statistic tools and currently helping with some of the logistic of the
>> steering committee all of that voluntarily as part of their job in our
>> different organisations. If you look at the Whois for 1net.org you will
>> see that AFRINIC took over the domain after the first launch of the web
>> site (I am the individual officially named as the registrant) and ICANN is
>> the tech administrator. I have been using my time to coordinate the web
>> site evolution with a team made of staff of a web hosting company and
>> ICANN's communication staff, but they don't do anything that has not been
>> approved by myself. They have also implemented the new forum which, some
>> within the volunteers I* organisations and others in the broader Internet
>> community offered to help road-test before it was officially launched. I
>> have been having a weekly coordination meeting with them after the first
>> launch (where there was some technical IPv6 and DNSSEC and other issues
>> which I and others worked on with them to fix). The cost of hosting the web
>> site and its development is currently provided by ICANN.
>>
>> Gradually coordinating the work behind the scene on these aspects is
>> being transitioned to the Steering Committee whose representatives have
>> been chosen by different stakeholder groups themselves. For example, the
>> Steering Committee also was provided with a link to test out the forum and
>> the new web site a few days before it went live so they could provide
>> feedback. That will be the systematic approach going forward.
>>
>> In terms of the summaries produced, there have been two. Staff at APNIC
>> produced the first, giving a statistical analysis of discussions on the
>> mailing list. That was well received and at the same time many participants
>> made it clear they were having troubling following events so consensus was
>> quickly reached that a summary of content would be useful. The Steering
>> Committee agreed so we moved ahead. The second summary was a collaboration
>> of a number of us, most of whom had helped with previous /1net efforts. But
>> I had the final sign-off (and I shared a version with the SC). As I
>> mentioned  on the mailing list this is an attempt to help, and nothing in
>> the summary is to be considered conclusive so can be challenged by anyone
>> if the find it inaccurate. I have also heard the suggestion on the list to
>> have a collaborative editing platform to produce the summary. My idea is
>> still to have a draft that people will play around with. I'm not sure just
>> letting the group as I see it developing every summary from scratch will
>> work effectively (my personal view).
>>
>> Going forward, we will continue to have have the automated mailing list
>> reports and possibly weekly summaries, depending on whether the lists
>> themselves show the ability to self-summarise.
>>
>> As proposed last week and discussed during the last conference call, I
>> think the Steering Committee need to organise itself to take over these
>> tasks starting with the Communications and Community engagement group. The
>> idea seems to have the support of the Steering Committee last week. So that
>> is a positive and important step. The team is expected to be comprised of a
>> number of professional communicators and Steering Committee members. The
>> members aren't decided yet but we'll announce them once they are.
>>
>> My expectation is that the communications team will make recommendations
>> to the Steering Committee about the things you reference: summaries,
>> website and so on. And it will be up to the Steering Committee to decide
>> how to proceed.
>>
>> While here, there are two other things I would like to bring your
>> attention. Firstly, all efforts behind the scenes are focused on how to
>> assist participants in arriving at solutions to issues that are identified
>> by participants themselves. It is a true support role in that respect.
>> Nothing else. As you may have noticed I ahve refrain myself posting
>> directly on some of the issues being discussed not to be seen as directing
>> the debate or having any particular hidden agenda. I have heard enough!
>>
>> Secondly, while some of us from the I* organisations have shouldered much
>> of the cost in terms of both time and money of /1net so far, the intention
>> going forward is for many other organisations to contribute to get this
>> running. The initiative can not sustain itself without all these
>> contributions.
>>
>> At the moment we are focussed on preparations for the Brazil meeting but
>> soon after that, we hope that /1net will have provided sufficient value and
>> worth that others are keen to support this initiative going forward.
>>
>> I hope that answers all your questions. If you or others have ideas,
>> suggestions, offers of help and so on I would be happy to hear them.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> - a.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Steercom mailing list
>> Steercom at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/steercom
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tks Anja... I'll look forward to hearing back concerning the set of
>> questions that I posed either from you or directly from responsible others
>> in 1Net.
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be good to put this matter to rest sooner rather than later.
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:31 AM
>> *To:* michael gurstein
>> *Cc:* David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC; &lt,
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process
>> for 1Net
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Michael and all,
>>
>> Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more
>> about how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were
>> shared with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my
>> knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation
>> until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how
>> to improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have
>> been requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a
>> user to interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for
>> that particular user the experience would actually not be very different
>> than it is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the
>> weeks to come.
>>
>> Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more.
>>
>> Best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be
>> more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning
>> of 1Net (certainly by myself).
>>
>>
>>
>> My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time)
>> in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward
>> 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful
>> response.
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au]
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM
>> *To:* michael gurstein
>> *Cc:* Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process
>> for 1Net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation
>> that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil
>> meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the
>> crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to
>> inclusions and exclusions.
>>
>>
>>
>>             I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency
>> and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a
>> positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger
>> amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this
>> point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do
>> with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy
>> outcomes of that, and future, events.
>>
>>             Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>                         David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/a848f1fa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Feb 14 03:07:03 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:37:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
 - IG
In-Reply-To: <0b7b01cf272a$123ef7e0$36bce7a0$@gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHCnXpJAzM0puvfhsNfm6_SXaF+LaoOALE_C4uCcamDFSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHA0FLcsHYzVUkzQ=+eOJK-+27jwN-KgFRtvsgusZNFUww@mail.gmail.com>
	<0b7b01cf272a$123ef7e0$36bce7a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBeYLhR=Hc1fbz9POrJCSie3-+KPWyN+Tw59qDOKDt1Hw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Michael,

My apologies for the gaps in my replies, it's been a challenge keeping up
with email this month, but I did still want to respond. Please see inline.


On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Anja,
>
>
>
> Inline...
>
>
>
> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:03 AM
>
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; &lt,
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>
>
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> When I talk about decentralisation, this is not simply a vague notion, but
> a reference to a vision and plan which already consists of several
> components and is slowly gaining more and more detail. The end goal of this
> work is to have quite a detailed map. The challenge will be to make sure
> that everyone has access to that map, but at least (if not more) to the
> extent that people can find their way in the UN system, I would think we
> can make sure that people can find their way in this ecosystem as well.
>
> *[MG>] I'd be very interested to see this... However, I think it is
> important to distinguish between decentralization of processes and
> decentralization of power... the first without the second is simply making
> busywork...  my feeling is that much of discussion that you are pointing to
> is concerned with this ...*
>
> *Decentralizing/deconcentrating centralized power comes not through
> decentralizing processes but through challenging and contesting for power -
> a situation where "decentralization" of one's forces would seem to be a
> recipe for failure...  *
>
[AK]: Yes, that is a good point. But at the same time, I would presume that
you would also not want that centralised force to be a concentrated one (as
in, limited to a very few players who then ultimately become extremely
powerful, be these players from civil society or another stakeholder
group). Any suggestions then how to strengthen the force, but not the
concentration?


> In fact, to the extent that that ecosystem would actually build on the
> existing UN system (which is an integral part of what we propose), this
> decentralisation should even make it easier for groups that are not yet
> involved in Internet governance but that are already involved in particular
> debates at the global level to find their way to relevant internet
> governance debates, as those debates would then often come to the venues in
> which they are already working, rather than these groups having to go and
> look for these venues and debates.
>
> *[MG>] Potentially interesting but again I'd like to see the details*
>
> [AK]: Work in progress...


> Contrary to your claim, such a system, as we also explain in the short
> paper on our ideas which I have shared earlier, would actually benefit
> developing country actors - be it governments or civil society - in
> particular, as for us knowing beforehand that a particular process is going
> to actually address a particular concern is a far more important factor in
> deciding whether to invest very limited resources than it is for many
> developed country actors.
>
> *[MG>] Potentially true particularly if there was something more than
> busywork processes involved in these multiple venues, but again need
> details... (there were none in the short paper that you pointed to, which was
> part of the reason for my reacting as I did... *
>
> *As an example, the challenge in the WIPO discussions I believe, was to
> create a real venue for LDC participation and get away from the multiple
> empty technical and narrowly focused discussions that (were deliberately
> designed?) to sap the LDC energies and resources... it was only when the
> LDC's insisted on a specific framework to address their issues that any
> real progress (from their perspective) was achieved..*
>
> [AK]: But isn't this then something that can be done in multiple Internet
governance venues as well? As I have said before, I really think we have to
move away from thinking of the Internet as an issue, to thinking of it as a
space. That is an argument in favour of recognising different venues as
being the appropriate places to discuss and decide on different Internet
governance issues. But arguing in favour of such decentralisation doesn't
stop us from also arguing in favour of an overarching framework that guides
both the development of this architecture in itself and the processes that
take place in the various different segments of it.

In fact, increasingly I am wondering whether, if we want
multistakeholderism to work, we maybe need something like a Constitution
for multistakeholder processes - not just a set of principles, but a more
detailed, binding document that outlines, for example, what kind of
criteria a particular participant (or at least non-government participant)
needs to fulfil in order to participate in a particular kind of process
(and criteria might be a little more open-ended and flexible for some
processes, more stringent for others, possibly guided by the nature of the
outcomes of the process in question). If there isn't a document that binds
us on these things, I can't really see at the moment how we can avoid
capture.


> Amorphous processes and venues, in which all issues are clubbed together,
> are a minus, not a plus for the developing world.
>
> *[MG>] Not necessarily, if the issue is a real contest about real issues...*
>
> [AK]: Could you give an example maybe?


> What is true is that for such a model to be successful, the range of civil
> society organisations/networks, especially organisations and networks that
> represent marginalised peoples, that is involved in IG debates needs to
> expand significantly. As for how to achieve that, solidarity and
> organisation are needed as much on the global level I would say as they are
> on the grassroots level.
>
> *[MG>] yes, but solidarity around what exactly...solidarity in support of
> exclusionary and non-transparent or accountable processes? solidarity in
> support of CS appointees who act as tacit or even active supporters of
> these processes? solidarity around CS prioritizing Human Rights but denying
> equivalent support for Equity and Social Justice ... That hardly seems like a
> useful strategy for marginalized groups or anyone else in CS with a real
> concern for how these things are developing, for that matter.*
>
> [AK]: I share your concern for social justice, Michael, but I seem to see
that concern present in some form or the other and admittedly to varying
degrees in far more posts that are made on these lists or far more
interactions I have with people then you do. And to build alliances and
support around these ideas, I think it is important to acknowledge those
seeds, no matter how limited they are. Wouldn't you agree that that is how
movement building always proceeds?

Best,
Anja


> *Best,*
>
> *M*
>
> Best,
>
> Anja
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 February 2014 11:01, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anja,
>
>
>
> One thing that I do know from my own work on the ground is that the only
> power that the marginalized have comes through their solidarity and
> organization... Vague notions of "decentralization" are precisely what those
> who wish to retain power present as solutions knowing full well that such
> would lead to the dispersal of energy and limited resources by the poor and
> marginalized. (As by the way the Less Developed Countries know full well
> and recognize as a tactic by the Developed Countries to reduce LDC
> opportunities for participation in decision making since they don't have
> the resources to track and participate in multiple venues and multiple
> processes).
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 07, 2014 5:10 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; &lt,
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent
> earlier, I felt compelled to respond directly.
>
> I have no naive assumptions about power. I do have a very different
> reading of the current state of play than you have. All evidence points in
> the direction that there are (to quote your words) "significant,
> well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to
> insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own
> corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from
> whatever process" already in most policy processes. The crucial
> difference between multistakeholder processes and other processes as far as
> I'm concerned is that civil society now can provide such insertions as
> well. That is the opportunity here, and as I don't see other stakeholder
> groups abdicating their power in far more closed processes so easily, I am
> not willing to let go of that opportunity until and unless we have explored
> every last bits of its potential to allow groups in society with far less
> power to influence policy processes and thus to help strengthen and further
> democratic policy making.
>
> Do we need safeguards etc? Yes, of course, and as I said in my earlier
> message, I quite firmly believe that decentralisation is in fact one of
> those safeguards, as is the malleability of the model we propose (which
> does leave space for multilateral decision-making as well). But more
> measures are required, and it is in this that a lot of our thinking is
> invested at the moment (and I know that is the case for quite a few other
> people as well).
>
> Indeed, I have found that it is by working through these ideas step by
> step that solutions emerge. Because my reading of the state of play is so
> different from yours, I think that continuing to dig deeper and deeper and
> sharpening these proposals step by step is the better bet, rather than
> letting not having the perfect answers up front stop us from sharing any
> ideas at all, and so that is the road on which I intend to continue.
>
> All the best,
>
> Anja
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and
> following the discussion on this list and others I'm struck by one
> overwhelming observation...
>
>
>
> Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to
> Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a
> world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is
> in the public good and the well-being of the Internet.
>
>
>
> Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance structure and
> that proposal for the "management of decision making through MSism" all are
> making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous
> assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and
> quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
> ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional
> interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.
>
>
>
> It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously unless
> there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to
> ensure that these forces do not prevail... that these processes are not
> captured and subverted... i.e. what are the defensive strategies and
> institutional mechanisms that "we" (CS) are advocating as part of whatever
> package we are promoting.
>
>
>
> Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by
> whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming
> temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do *whatever it
> takes* to twist the result to support one's own narrow
> (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of
> this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.
>
>
>
> This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common
> sense.
>
>
>
> Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> *To:* Anne Jellema
> *Cc:* Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com;
> jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments
> below:
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> /SNIP/
>
> If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some
> kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following
> function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional
> model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the
> goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an international body or
> forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for different
> goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through
> negotiated agreement on globally applicable but ultimately non-binding
> regulatory models (a la ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC
> Rights)? Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an
> enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key internet
> standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or
> none of the above?!
>
>
>
> One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows
> such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal
> outlined here:
> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
> It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all
> issues, and some issues might even require a variety of
> organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue is to
> be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage of making
> it possible to already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on
> the process, without needing to wait for agreement on the
> one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all issues for all
> time to come.
>
> Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian
> expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in
> such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different
> groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on
> provides as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that
> have a stake in that particular issue.
>
> Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that
> I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this
> document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be
> making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
> agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue
> would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution
> takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is
> of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request.
> This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only
> request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Marilia Maciel* <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
> To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> Hi Andrew and all,
>
>
>
> After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
> comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than
> to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
>
>
>
> First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
> the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
> respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are
> also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following.
>
>
>
> - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
> power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases
> for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that
> although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it
> has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is
> important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
> recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all
> along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these
> imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these
> demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
>
>
>
> - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify
> the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first
> option is correct...
>
>
>
> - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
> mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce
> recommendations and send them to other organizations:
>
> a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
>
> b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
> is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance,
> WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS
> opinion on the subject would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that,
> and how does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
> international regimes?
>
> c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
> MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
>
> d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving
> the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a
> renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget
> the drama before Bali).
>
> e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
> chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very,
> very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies
> to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG
> heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from
> the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical
> community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of
> the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of
> enough voluntary funding to the IGF?
>
> f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
> sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF
> and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move
> up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully
>
>
>
> - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
> model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
> prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and
> fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of
> your argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage
> those without power and resources.
>
>
>
> - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the
> argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of
> internet issues could be more carefully explained.
>
>
>
> That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
> can continue the discussions.
>
> Thanks again for the good start
>
> Marília
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <
> mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don't care what what the specifics of
> that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the
> window of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something
> substantive from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now.
>
>
>
> I'm not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
> should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be
> shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and
> consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
> represents.
>
>
>
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
>
> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446
>
> *Skype* mnemonic1026
>
> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA
>
>
>
> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.*
>
> www.internews.org | @internews <http://www.twitter.com/internews> |
> facebook.com/internews <http://www.facebook.com/internews>
>
>
>
> *From: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
> *To: *"jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
>
> I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust
> the list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point
> for progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
> disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
> discussions and negotiations can begin. ...
>
>
>
> The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku
> best bits meeting
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
> On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Three examples might be:
>
> 1.       Net neutrality
>
> 2.       Protection for personal privacy
>
> 3.       Affordable access
>
> We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered that
> we call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these three
> objectives both at the  international level and in national policies.
>
>
>
> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for
> this in a two day conference
>
>
> I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we stop?
> The technical community will say "Well if we're including net neutrality,
> why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say (and quite
> rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.  Also, within
> your examples, affordable access falls into a different category than the
> other two, having less to do with global public policy principles.
>
> I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
> dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
> principles and mechanisms.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the
> global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* |
> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> 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.
>
>
>
> Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>to report this email as spam.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Anne Jellema
>
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> Cape Town, RSA
> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352
>
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/475bba21/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Feb 14 03:08:31 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:38:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <0b8001cf272a$180675e0$481361a0$@gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
	<20140207150553.775173a6@quill>
	<CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com>
	<156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba>
	<20140209200812.40d02420@quill>
	<CAJqNAHBdPePUywf+X0BvHgYyfpwPY9DraDSuPkFVRzn7WbdNaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0b8001cf272a$180675e0$481361a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDz+D8=fzXjbkLjAJGFsYdUa=4yd=YaE0c=Y+WJ=rZEPw@mail.gmail.com>

Agreed, Michael.

Anja


On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> While somewhat agreeing with what you say below I would add the need to
> protect against the capture of CS and other elements in those processes
> through ensuring full transparency and effective structures of
> accountability.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:20 AM
> *To:* Norbert Bollow
> *Cc:* IGC; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms
> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
>
>
>
> I agree with much of what Ian and Avri had to say. The reason I am still
> putting my bet on exploring multistakeholderism in greater detail is
> because, as I have mentioned before, the defining differences here are that
> civil society in that system would also be guaranteed a place around the
> table if it so desired (i.e. corporations wouldn't be the only ones), and
> that governments would have to account for what they do with the inputs
> provided, rather than those inputs just disappearing into what sometimes
> seems like a black box. If we can make those things stick, I think that is
> a major gain for people's democracy, not a loss.
>
> Corporate power is not the only obstacle in the way of such a vision
> succeeding though. It also requires a new kind of organising among civil
> society, including by working through and addressing the very real power
> imbalances within civil society. That is our responsibility. Whether or not
> we'll be able to step up to the challenge is a wait and see, but I for one
> would like us to try.
>
> Anja
>
>
>
> On 10 February 2014 00:38, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> > Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this
>
> I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly
> better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have
> considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't
> necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get
> posted on the IGC and BestBits lists.
>
> Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov
>
> Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to
> address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms
>
> against capture and other forms of undue influence by special
>
> interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related
> discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough
> crossposting problem) already.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >   On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >
> >     I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for
> >     the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly
> > take these realities of particular interests (which are often in
> > conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration.
> >
> >
>
> >     Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >     > As I'm reading the various messages and suggestions concerning
> >     > Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I'm
> >     > struck by one overwhelming observation...
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with
> >     > respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions)
> >     > are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors
> >     > (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and
> >     > the well-being of the Internet.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Thus proposals for this type of "decentralized" governance
> >     > structure and that proposal for the "management of decision
> >     > making through MSism" all are making the completely unwarranted
> >     > and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there
> >     > are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely
> >     > unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and
> >     > ensure the dominance of their own
> >     > corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever
> >     > emerges from whatever process.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > It really is hard to take any of this discussion very  seriously
> >     > unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures
> >     > can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail...
> >     > that these processes are not captured and subverted... i.e. what
> >     > are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that
> >     > "we" (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are
> >     > promoting.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the
> >     > overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be
> >     > impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and
> >     > the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the
> >     > responsibility) to do whatever it takes to twist the result to
> >     > support one's own narrow (corporate/national/institutional )
> >     > interests and what the significance of this observation has to
> >     > be for these discussions and their outputs.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple
> >     > common sense.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been
> >     > telling us?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > M
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> >     > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja
> >     > Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM
> >     > To: Anne Jellema
> >     > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG);
> >     > genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org;
> >     > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive
> >     > proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Dear all,
> >     >
> >     > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few
> >     > comments below:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org>
> >     > wrote:
> >     >
> >     > /SNIP/
> >     >
> >     > If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to
> >     > require some kind of global public action, then in the spirit
> >     > of form following function, maybe the rather daunting
> >     > discussion on the best institutional model(s) will become
> >     > easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can
> >     > think harder about viable routes for an international body or
> >     > forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for
> >     > different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and
> >     > setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally
> >     > applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la
> >     > ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)?
> >     > Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an
> >     > enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key
> >     > internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination
> >     > of the above? Or none of the above?!
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a
> >     > decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because
> >     > it allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on
> >     > goals (see our proposal outlined here:
> >     >
> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised
> >     > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/).
> >     > It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately
> >     > address all issues, and some issues might even require a
> >     > variety of organisations/institutions to lead a process
> >     > together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such an
> >     > approach also has the advantage of making it possible to
> >     > already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on the
> >     > process, without needing to wait for agreement on the
> >     > one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all
> >     > issues for all time to come.
> >     >
> >     > Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia
> >     > and Ian expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape
> >     > processes in each case in such a way that the shifting and
> >     > changing power relations among different groups can be taken
> >     > into account and whatever process is decided on provides as
> >     > level a playing field as possible for the different groups that
> >     > have a stake in that particular issue.
> >     >
> >     > Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked
> >     > earlier, and that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us
> >     > present in the meeting that this document reports on thought
> >     > that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be making any
> >     > substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond
> >     > agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a
> >     > particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests
> >     > that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a
> >     > process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still
> >     > up to that institution to accept or reject that request. This
> >     > is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can
> >     > only request other UN bodies to take up a matter.
> >     >
> >     > Best,
> >     > Anja
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >     > From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> >     > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48
> >     > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
> >     > - IG governance
> >     > To: Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
> >     > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Hi Andrew and all,
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > After reading the document I was willing to send a more
> >     > carefully written comment, but I believe it is better to share
> >     > thoughts informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the
> >     > chaotic message.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You
> >     > managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide both an
> >     > overview of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the
> >     > group who analyzed them (which are also useful btw). Some
> >     > remarks I would initially have are the following.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned
> >     > imbalances of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other
> >     > similar things as "cases for governance reform". I think that
> >     > one conclusion from that is that although we support the idea
> >     > of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived"
> >     > and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to
> >     > emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced
> >     > recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united
> >     > around MS all along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have
> >     > been pointing out to these imbalances for a long time, so in
> >     > order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion
> >     > should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just
> >     > identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will
> >     > assume the first option is correct...
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed
> >     > governance" that you mapped overlook some important points. If
> >     > MIPC or MIPOC  produce recommendations and send them to other
> >     > organizations:
> >     >
> >     > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?;
> >     >
> >     > b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's
> >     > advice? If there is no weight, would we be giving an additional
> >     > incentive to, for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the
> >     > Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the subject
> >     > would  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does
> >     > this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional
> >     > international regimes?
> >     >
> >     > c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back
> >     > to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears?
> >     >
> >     > d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition:
> >     > improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont
> >     > know if there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to
> >     > continue the forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali).
> >     >
> >     > e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is
> >     > little chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes
> >     > without a very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who
> >     > understand of methodologies to deal with large groups. Those
> >     > who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I did,
> >     > that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN.
> >     > The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the
> >     > technical community were alligned against UN public funding,
> >     > taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of
> >     > improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary
> >     > funding to the IGF?
> >     >
> >     > f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was
> >     > not sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the
> >     > frailty of the IGF and the fact that outcomes from the
> >     > coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I
> >     > would look into that more carefully
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN
> >     > Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less
> >     > clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more
> >     > opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in
> >     > mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument
> >     > that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those
> >     > without power and resources.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the
> >     > possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so
> >     > maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal
> >     > with the diversity of internet issues could be more carefully
> >     > explained.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and
> >     > hoping we can continue the discussions.
> >     >
> >     > Thanks again for the good start
> >     >
> >     > Marília
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Cheers
> >     >
> >     > Anne
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin
> >     > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a
> >     > clear, targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society
> >     > agenda going forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don't care
> >     > what what the specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the
> >     > timeline is excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is
> >     > limited, and if want to take away something substantive from
> >     > Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > I'm not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda
> >     > should be, or should have been different. Brazil is a unique
> >     > opportunity, and it will be shame if it goes to waste because
> >     > civil society focused more on process and consensus than on
> >     > extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil
> >     > represents.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --Mike
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
> >     ____________________________________________________________
> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >   ____________________________________________________________
> >   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >   To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/f9ca317f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Feb 14 04:34:51 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 04:34:51 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBINAR TODAY: The Evolution of the Internet
 Governance Forum
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1vSh4GDfS=2qBPGqNyG41G=4jJeQ--ReKfT_-mEOMwtw@mail.gmail.com>

Two days ago the European Commission announced it's policy
(video<http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325>)
calling for "globalization" of Internet Governance. One aspect, in keeping
with the Montevideo
Statement<http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation>,
is
the suggestion that the IANA
contract<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order>
be
removed from US control.  Larry Strickling of the NTIA responded
immediately<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/statement-assistant-secretary-strickling-european-commission-statement-internet-g>
to
the EU statement, supporting it in principle, but notably making no
reference to the IANA functions. There was further discussion at the UK IGF
yesterday in which Internet Minister Ed Vaizey also spoke in support
(video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo8OOvxvO3s>).
Vaizey emphazed the value of maintaining the IGF as a talk shop rather than
a deliberative assembly, in order that it function openly and creatively.

   joly posted: "Today, Friday 14 February 2014, at 8:30 am EST, the
Internet Society invites members to attend a webinar - The Evolution of the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The Internet Society's public policy staff
will share insights and discuss the IGF, how it wor"

  [image: ISOC]Today, Friday 14 February 2014, at 8:30 am EST, the Internet
Society invites members to attend a webinar - The Evolution of the Internet
Governance Forum<http://www.internetsociety.org/invite-come-discuss-evolution-internet-governance-forum-igf-our-experts>(IGF).
The Internet Society's public policy staff will share insights and
discuss the IGF, how it works today, the experiences that it has helped us
acquire and how it can evolve.

2014 will be a pivotal year for the future of the Internet. The open
question is whether there will be an international consensus on the
multistakeholder Internet governance model or a shift towards a more
intergovernmental model - Markus Kummer, Vice President, Public Policy

*What*: The Evolution of the Internet Governance
Forum<http://www.internetsociety.org/invite-come-discuss-evolution-internet-governance-forum-igf-our-experts>
*When*: Friday 14 February 2014, 8.30 am EST | 1330 UTC
*Webex*:
https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=mf181a66ad82076a2306b31600d14a765
*Phone bridge*: 1-650-479-3208 USA | elsewhere - http://bit.ly/MQHjMw
*Meeting code/number*: 926 451 896 | *Meeting Password*: 2014Ge
*Twitter*: igf2014 <https://twitter.com/search?q=igf2014&f=realtime>

 Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6303#respond>    See all
comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6303#comments>


 *Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6303




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/935ec626/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Feb 14 07:20:14 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:20:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BLACNIC/Anuncios=5D_Declarac?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?i=F3n_Santa_M=F3nica-_Declara=E7=E3o_Santa_M=F3nica-_Santa?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_M=F3nica_Statement?=
In-Reply-To: <52FE067F.3060404@lacnic.net>
References: <52FE067F.3060404@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN74MwsGkt2OdWeFLsThn=6sOA3M=WvpnR=7VSnRJwuPDA@mail.gmail.com>

This message about the Santa Monica meeting just arrived from LACNIC
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: María Gayo <mgayo at lacnic.net>
Date: 2014-02-14 8:05 GMT-04:00
Subject: [LACNIC/Anuncios] Declaración Santa Mónica- Declaração Santa
Mónica- Santa Mónica Statement
To: anuncios at lacnic.net



(Português abaixo)
(English below)
--------------------

*Declaración de la Reunión de Coordinación de los Líderes I**

Santa Monica, 14 de febrero de 2014
Un grupo de líderes de las organizaciones responsables por la coordinación
de la infraestructura técnica de Internet (grupo al cual se ha dado en
llamar "líderes I*") se reunió la semana pasada en Santa Mónica, California
(EE.UU.). Durante los dos días que duró la reunión, el grupo discutió las
actividades que están en marcha e intercambiaron puntos de vista y
actualizaciones sobre una variedad de temas.
http://www.lacnic.net/web/anuncios/2014-declaracion-santamonica

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Declaração da Reunião de Coordenação dos Líderes I*

Santa Mónica, 14 de fevereiro de 2014
Um grupo de líderes das organizações responsáveis pela coordenação da
infraestrutura técnica da Internet (grupo chamado de "líderes I*")
reuniu-se na semana passada em Santa Mónica, Califórnia (Estados Unidos).
Durante os dois dias que durou a reunião, o grupo debateu acerca das
atividades que estão em andamento e trocaram pontos de vista e atualizações
sobre uma grande variedade de assuntos.
http://www.lacnic.net/pt/web/anuncios/2014-declaracion-santamonica

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Statement from the I* Leaders Coordination Meeting

Santa Monica, 14 February 2014
Leaders of the organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet
technical infrastructure (loosely referred to as "I* leaders") met last
week in Santa Monica, California, USA. During the 2-day meeting, they
discussed activities underway and exchanged views and updates on a range of
topics. http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-declaracion-santamonica


-- 
 [image: Embedded Image]
 *María Gayo*
Coordinadora de Comunicaciones
Communications Coordinator
*# 4206*
 [image: Embedded Image]

*Casa de Internet de Latinoamérica y el Caribe*
Rambla Rep. de México 6125
11400 Montevideo-Uruguay
+598 2604 22 22 www.lacnic.net

_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/a6ed1906/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ihcagdgg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6213 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/a6ed1906/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jjfhgfhe.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5594 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/a6ed1906/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Feb 14 07:29:52 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:29:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BLACNIC/Anuncios=5D_Declaraci?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=B3n_Santa_M=C3=B3nica-_Declara=C3=A7=C3=A3o_Santa_M=C3=B3ni?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ca-_Santa_M=C3=B3nica_Statement?=
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN74MwsGkt2OdWeFLsThn=6sOA3M=WvpnR=7VSnRJwuPDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52FE067F.3060404@lacnic.net> <CAMz5XN74MwsGkt2OdWeFLsThn=6sOA3M=WvpnR=7VSnRJwuPDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52FE0C40.5080502@wzb.eu>

Hi Deidre,

thanks for the link. One would hope that the "I* leaders" had more to 
talk about over the course of two days than what the pretty basic 
statement suggests.

jeanette



Am 14.02.14 13:20, schrieb Deirdre Williams:
> This message about the Santa Monica meeting just arrived from LACNIC
> Deirdre
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *María Gayo* <mgayo at lacnic.net <mailto:mgayo at lacnic.net>>
> Date: 2014-02-14 8:05 GMT-04:00
> Subject: [LACNIC/Anuncios] Declaración Santa Mónica- Declaração Santa
> Mónica- Santa Mónica Statement
> To: anuncios at lacnic.net <mailto:anuncios at lacnic.net>
>
>
>
> (Português abaixo)
> (English below)
> --------------------
>
> *Declaración de la Reunión de Coordinación de los Líderes I**
>
> Santa Monica, 14 de febrero de 2014
>
> Un grupo de líderes de las organizaciones responsables por la
> coordinación de la infraestructura técnica de Internet (grupo al cual se
> ha dado en llamar "líderes I*") se reunió la semana pasada en Santa
> Mónica, California (EE.UU.). Durante los dos días que duró la reunión,
> el grupo discutió las actividades que están en marcha e intercambiaron
> puntos de vista y actualizaciones sobre una variedad de temas.
> http://www.lacnic.net/web/anuncios/2014-declaracion-santamonica
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   Declaração da Reunião de Coordenação dos Líderes I*
>
> Santa Mónica, 14 de fevereiro de 2014
>
> Um grupo de líderes das organizações responsáveis pela coordenação da
> infraestrutura técnica da Internet (grupo chamado de "líderes I*")
> reuniu-se na semana passada em Santa Mónica, Califórnia (Estados
> Unidos). Durante os dois dias que durou a reunião, o grupo debateu
> acerca das atividades que estão em andamento e trocaram pontos de vista
> e atualizações sobre uma grande variedade de assuntos.
> http://www.lacnic.net/pt/web/anuncios/2014-declaracion-santamonica
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   Statement from the I* Leaders Coordination Meeting
>
> //
>
> Santa Monica, 14 February 2014
>
> Leaders of the organizations responsible for coordination of the
> Internet technical infrastructure (loosely referred to as "I* leaders")
> met last week in Santa Monica, California, USA. During the 2-day
> meeting, they discussed activities underway and exchanged views and
> updates on a range of topics.
> http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-declaracion-santamonica
>
>
> --
> Embedded Image
> *María Gayo*
> Coordinadora de Comunicaciones
> Communications Coordinator
> *# 4206*
> Embedded Image
> *Casa de Internet de
> Latinoamérica y el Caribe*
> Rambla Rep. de México 6125
> 11400 Montevideo-Uruguay
> +598 2604 22 22 <tel:%2B598%202604%2022%2022> www.lacnic.net
> <http://www.lacnic.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anuncios mailing list
> Anuncios at lacnic.net <mailto: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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Feb 14 07:59:49 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:59:49 +0100
Subject: [governance] MEP Schaake calls for broader discussion of EU Plan
References: <52FE067F.3060404@lacnic.net>
 <CAMz5XN74MwsGkt2OdWeFLsThn=6sOA3M=WvpnR=7VSnRJwuPDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801641FD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
FYI
 
http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/02/mep-calls-for-debate-on-internet-governance-europe/

wolfgang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/7bdeb136/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ihcagdgg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6213 bytes
Desc: ihcagdgg.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/7bdeb136/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jjfhgfhe.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5594 bytes
Desc: jjfhgfhe.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/7bdeb136/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 14 08:11:04 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:11:04 +1200
Subject: [governance] MEP Schaake calls for broader discussion of EU
 Plan
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801641FD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <52FE067F.3060404@lacnic.net>
	<CAMz5XN74MwsGkt2OdWeFLsThn=6sOA3M=WvpnR=7VSnRJwuPDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801641FD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC7o4VF91RbEKN6hTJSW8igRzZ6Ux7DiAfL1XTYTFt28g@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks Wolfgang.

Very interesting. It would be better if the IGF has debates like the one
being proposed. They allow communities to hear perspectives from all angles.


2014-02-15 0:59 GMT+12:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:

>
> FYI
>
>
> http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/02/mep-calls-for-debate-on-internet-governance-europe/
> wolfgang
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140215/00da8537/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Feb 14 09:28:53 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:28:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BLACNIC/Anuncios=5D_Decl?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?araci=F3n_Santa_M=F3nica-_Declara=E7=E3o_Santa_M=F3nica-_S?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?anta_M=F3nica_Statement?=
In-Reply-To: <52FE0C40.5080502@wzb.eu>
References: <52FE067F.3060404@lacnic.net> <CAMz5XN74MwsGkt2OdWeFLsThn=6sOA3M=WvpnR=7VSnRJwuPDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52FE0C40.5080502@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN42o9X4D5PAEOp8R_PSK6K8yKOng2iPOfTp1pzsLD6gnQ@mail.gmail.com>

One never knows! :-)
I watched this on Al Jazeera last night
http ://
www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/02/globalising-internet-governance-2014213144354855649.html

The panel is Nigel Hickson, Andrei Soldatov and Pavan Duggal discussing
"Globalising Internet Governance".


On 14 February 2014 08:29, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi Deidre,
>
> thanks for the link. One would hope that the "I* leaders" had more to talk
> about over the course of two days than what the pretty basic statement
> suggests.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> Am 14.02.14 13:20, schrieb Deirdre Williams:
>
>> This message about the Santa Monica meeting just arrived from LACNIC
>> Deirdre
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *María Gayo* <mgayo at lacnic.net <mailto:mgayo at lacnic.net>>
>> Date: 2014-02-14 8:05 GMT-04:00
>> Subject: [LACNIC/Anuncios] Declaración Santa Mónica- Declaração Santa
>> Mónica- Santa Mónica Statement
>> To: anuncios at lacnic.net <mailto:anuncios at lacnic.net>
>>
>>
>>
>> (Português abaixo)
>> (English below)
>> --------------------
>>
>> *Declaración de la Reunión de Coordinación de los Líderes I**
>>
>>
>> Santa Monica, 14 de febrero de 2014
>>
>> Un grupo de líderes de las organizaciones responsables por la
>> coordinación de la infraestructura técnica de Internet (grupo al cual se
>> ha dado en llamar "líderes I*") se reunió la semana pasada en Santa
>> Mónica, California (EE.UU.). Durante los dos días que duró la reunión,
>> el grupo discutió las actividades que están en marcha e intercambiaron
>> puntos de vista y actualizaciones sobre una variedad de temas.
>> http://www.lacnic.net/web/anuncios/2014-declaracion-santamonica
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------------------------
>>
>>
>>   Declaração da Reunião de Coordenação dos Líderes I*
>>
>> Santa Mónica, 14 de fevereiro de 2014
>>
>> Um grupo de líderes das organizações responsáveis pela coordenação da
>> infraestrutura técnica da Internet (grupo chamado de "líderes I*")
>> reuniu-se na semana passada em Santa Mónica, Califórnia (Estados
>> Unidos). Durante os dois dias que durou a reunião, o grupo debateu
>> acerca das atividades que estão em andamento e trocaram pontos de vista
>> e atualizações sobre uma grande variedade de assuntos.
>> http://www.lacnic.net/pt/web/anuncios/2014-declaracion-santamonica
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------------------------
>>
>>
>>   Statement from the I* Leaders Coordination Meeting
>>
>> //
>>
>>
>> Santa Monica, 14 February 2014
>>
>> Leaders of the organizations responsible for coordination of the
>> Internet technical infrastructure (loosely referred to as "I* leaders")
>> met last week in Santa Monica, California, USA. During the 2-day
>> meeting, they discussed activities underway and exchanged views and
>> updates on a range of topics.
>> http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-declaracion-santamonica
>>
>>
>> --
>> Embedded Image
>> *María Gayo*
>>
>> Coordinadora de Comunicaciones
>> Communications Coordinator
>> *# 4206*
>> Embedded Image
>> *Casa de Internet de
>> Latinoamérica y el Caribe*
>>
>> Rambla Rep. de México 6125
>> 11400 Montevideo-Uruguay
>> +598 2604 22 22 <tel:%2B598%202604%2022%2022> www.lacnic.net
>> <http://www.lacnic.net>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Anuncios mailing list
>> Anuncios at lacnic.net <mailto: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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/058a1bf3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dave at difference.com.au  Fri Feb 14 09:31:28 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:31:28 +0800
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <E9946BC1-FDB9-4793-9B78-F931C7313EE3@difference.com.au>


On 9 Feb 2014, at 3:26 pm, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real and present danger.

	Multi-stakeholderism that is not genuinely open to all, and that is not transparent, is a real danger. 
	But in contrast, multilateral intergovernmental institutions are not open to all by definition and design. When combined with a lack of transparency, this can be disastrous. 

> But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we call democracy? In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties. The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse in some other countries.

	For an example, the Australian Law Reform Commission released its final report into copyright reform, recommending many changes including a switch from a common law fair dealing system to a US style fair use system, which would add substantial flexibility. The report had contributions from hundreds of stakeholders, involvement of industry representatives and other experts, very senior judges and legal experts, etc. The minister announced he was not convinced - taken by many to be the first step in rejecting it. Is it a coincidence the Ministers party has received large campaign contributions from large copyright holders such as the movie industry? 

> 
> And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable arrangements between these corruptible nation states either.
> 
> The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating  as regards nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business interests from crowding the public out of the tent ".
> 
> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any form of governance, highly corruptible .

	Openness and transparency are essential aspects of multi-stakeholderism. Not all MS institutions are equal in this respect, and we should ensure that truly open participation and full transparency are among the principles for future MS institutions. 
	
> The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)".
> 
> It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a central design element.

	Indeed. Much of ICANNs institutional design makes much more sense if you understand this historical background. 

	Regards
		David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/b636b16c/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 14 11:15:46 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:15:46 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: WEBINAR TODAY: The Evolution of the Internet
 Governance Forum
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk1vSh4GDfS=2qBPGqNyG41G=4jJeQ--ReKfT_-mEOMwtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk1vSh4GDfS=2qBPGqNyG41G=4jJeQ--ReKfT_-mEOMwtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk00nhoKLkUjtde7b3WOG-ZxCmwP85YhKG-h6=aBXTR4fg@mail.gmail.com>

The primary topic was an Internet Society
proposal<http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/IGF-2014Request-for-Public-Input.pdf>
that
the IGF 1) be transformed into a body that would develop non-binding policy
outcomes, and 2) engender a structured policy development process between
meetings.

 I have posted a recording of the webinar at http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6303


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

>
> Two days ago the European Commission announced it's policy (video<http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325>)
> calling for "globalization" of Internet Governance. One aspect, in keeping
> with the Montevideo Statement<http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation>, is
> the suggestion that the IANA contract<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> be
> removed from US control.  Larry Strickling of the NTIA responded
> immediately<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/statement-assistant-secretary-strickling-european-commission-statement-internet-g> to
> the EU statement, supporting it in principle, but notably making no
> reference to the IANA functions. There was further discussion at the UK IGF
> yesterday in which Internet Minister Ed Vaizey also spoke in support  (
> video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo8OOvxvO3s>). Vaizey emphazed the
> value of maintaining the IGF as a talk shop rather than a deliberative
> assembly, in order that it function openly and creatively.
>
>    joly posted: "Today, Friday 14 February 2014, at 8:30 am EST, the
> Internet Society invites members to attend a webinar - The Evolution of the
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The Internet Society's public policy staff
> will share insights and discuss the IGF, how it wor"
>
>   [image: ISOC]Today, Friday 14 February 2014, at 8:30 am EST, the
> Internet Society invites members to attend a webinar - The Evolution of
> the Internet Governance Forum<http://www.internetsociety.org/invite-come-discuss-evolution-internet-governance-forum-igf-our-experts>(IGF). The Internet Society's public policy staff will share insights and
> discuss the IGF, how it works today, the experiences that it has helped us
> acquire and how it can evolve.
>
> 2014 will be a pivotal year for the future of the Internet. The open
> question is whether there will be an international consensus on the
> multistakeholder Internet governance model or a shift towards a more
> intergovernmental model - Markus Kummer, Vice President, Public Policy
>
> *What*: The Evolution of the Internet Governance Forum<http://www.internetsociety.org/invite-come-discuss-evolution-internet-governance-forum-igf-our-experts>
> *When*: Friday 14 February 2014, 8.30 am EST | 1330 UTC
> *Webex*:
> https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=mf181a66ad82076a2306b31600d14a765
> *Phone bridge*: 1-650-479-3208 USA | elsewhere - http://bit.ly/MQHjMw
> *Meeting code/number*: 926 451 896 | *Meeting Password*: 2014Ge
> *Twitter*: igf2014 <https://twitter.com/search?q=igf2014&f=realtime>
>
>  Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6303#respond>    See all comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6303#comments>
>
>
>  *Permalink*
> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6303
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140214/990dd4a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb 14 22:06:24 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:36:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
 1Net
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDequ4A0f6F_npdkCdOXMJ3EVDuhJhsDzfYQLnOAPQKCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <g7xn6xiyfxq2koiidx86f26n.1391919277682@email.android.com>	<CDD87154412E4E1C9074AFB57B9B75B0@Toshiba>	<044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com>	<965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au>	<062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com>	<CAJqNAHBpqs0ZgaVVd405gc9UP6gy=09GnNfdidebtrztWA2Y=A@mail.gmail.com>	<0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com>	<CAJqNAHDjguukoDv5iDugZKOofw3dBtY5U7vDdxuHCMSzXSkewA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHDequ4A0f6F_npdkCdOXMJ3EVDuhJhsDzfYQLnOAPQKCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02f401cf29fa$ebc5b800$c3512800$@gmail.com>

Thanks for this.

 

Some questions were usefully answered and others less so. but we get the
idea.

 

Best and thanks again,

 

Mike

 

From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 11:56 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC;
&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
1Net

 

Dear all,

Following up on my earlier email, I also wanted to share with you Adiel's
response to my additional queries regarding who wrote the summary. Please
find our exchange below this message.

Best,
Anja

On 13 February 2014 15:01, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:


On 2014-02-13, at 24:27 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> The second summary was a collaboration of a number of us, most of whom had
helped with previous /1net efforts.
>
> [AK]: As this was one of the questions specifically asked, could you
please clarify who the "number of us" were? In particular, was this a
subgroup from the SC or were there others also involved?

Hello Anja, there was staff from our various organisations including myself,
they don't want to be listed so label all on just me if the "Who" here
matter that much. I'm taking the full responsibility of it.

Thanks and hope that will help.

- a.






 

On 13 February 2014 02:15, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

Dear all,

As I had promised, I asked Adiel to shed further light on the financing of
the website/forum and the summary. Please find my email, and Adiel's
detailed reply below. I have asked him to further clarify who the "some of
us" are who wrote the second summary he refers to, but in the interest of
time thought I'll share the below response with you already. I hope this
answers many of the questions that were raised. 

Best wishes,
Anja

 

On 12 February 2014 02:21, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:

Hello Anja,


On 2014-02-11, at 01:59 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> Thanks for all the ongoing work on the website and the transformation of
the summaries on the forum. These are important and positive steps in
responding to some of the questions and criticisms that have been raised.
>
> Within civil society, some people have been wondering, though, how the
work for both is being funded, and also who exactly is doing it. I think
these are fair enough questions, and that it would be important to provide
an answer to them as part of our efforts to improve transparency.
>
> Adiel, could you therefore clarify who exactly prepared the summary (I had
presumed it was you but my apologies if I was wrong!), and how this was
supported financially, if at all? Similarly for the website, who designed
and developed it, and where did the idea for a forum come from? And how
was/is the website funded?
>
> I think it is valuable for the members of the SC as well to have a bit
more of a sense of these issues. My apologies if you already clarified this
in the first part of the call last week, but if not, it would be great if
you could do so here.



Thanks for your email which has some fair and reasonable questions.

To start, I would like to reinsure you and all form the Civil Society that
this is and has always been a collective effort to move /1net from just a
mailing list into something more coherent and structured.

The goal of course is to have the participants organise themselves and make
/1net what it should be by identifying issues and work together to
collectively find solutions and/or ideas. But as with anything in life, and
particularly in self organised environment there is always work to be done
behind the scenes to ensure that the momentum is kept, and it is perfectly
reasonable for people to request who is doing that. But at the same time
people should remember where the whole initiative started from (and it seems
to me like people suddenly decide to forget it).

The short answer is that there have been two main contributions: that of
time and of finances. Time has of course come from a wide range of
participants but in terms of organisational effort much of it has come from
individuals within some of the I* organisations that signed the Montevideo
Declaration (particularly AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, RIPE-NCC and ICANN).

The unseen work of /1net to date such as organising meetings, setting up
mailing lists, registering domains, setting up the website have been done by
a range of different staff in those organisations. For example, AFRINIC as
NRO secretariat ran the first mailing list, and we use AFRINIC's web
conferencing facilities to have calls and coordinate that, RIPE-NCC staff
work with the hosting company on the transfer of the mailing list from
nor.net to 1net.org, AFRINIC staff has developed the mailing list statistic
tools and currently helping with some of the logistic of the steering
committee all of that voluntarily as part of their job in our different
organisations. If you look at the Whois for 1net.org you will see that
AFRINIC took over the domain after the first launch of the web site (I am
the individual officially named as the registrant) and ICANN is the tech
administrator. I have been using my time to coordinate the web site
evolution with a team made of staff of a web hosting company and ICANN's
communication staff, but they don't do anything that has not been approved
by myself. They have also implemented the new forum which, some within the
volunteers I* organisations and others in the broader Internet community
offered to help road-test before it was officially launched. I have been
having a weekly coordination meeting with them after the first launch (where
there was some technical IPv6 and DNSSEC and other issues which I and others
worked on with them to fix). The cost of hosting the web site and its
development is currently provided by ICANN.

Gradually coordinating the work behind the scene on these aspects is being
transitioned to the Steering Committee whose representatives have been
chosen by different stakeholder groups themselves. For example, the Steering
Committee also was provided with a link to test out the forum and the new
web site a few days before it went live so they could provide feedback. That
will be the systematic approach going forward.

In terms of the summaries produced, there have been two. Staff at APNIC
produced the first, giving a statistical analysis of discussions on the
mailing list. That was well received and at the same time many participants
made it clear they were having troubling following events so consensus was
quickly reached that a summary of content would be useful. The Steering
Committee agreed so we moved ahead. The second summary was a collaboration
of a number of us, most of whom had helped with previous /1net efforts. But
I had the final sign-off (and I shared a version with the SC). As I
mentioned  on the mailing list this is an attempt to help, and nothing in
the summary is to be considered conclusive so can be challenged by anyone if
the find it inaccurate. I have also heard the suggestion on the list to have
a collaborative editing platform to produce the summary. My idea is still to
have a draft that people will play around with. I'm not sure just letting
the group as I see it developing every summary from scratch will work
effectively (my personal view).

Going forward, we will continue to have have the automated mailing list
reports and possibly weekly summaries, depending on whether the lists
themselves show the ability to self-summarise.

As proposed last week and discussed during the last conference call, I think
the Steering Committee need to organise itself to take over these tasks
starting with the Communications and Community engagement group. The idea
seems to have the support of the Steering Committee last week. So that is a
positive and important step. The team is expected to be comprised of a
number of professional communicators and Steering Committee members. The
members aren't decided yet but we'll announce them once they are.

My expectation is that the communications team will make recommendations to
the Steering Committee about the things you reference: summaries, website
and so on. And it will be up to the Steering Committee to decide how to
proceed.

While here, there are two other things I would like to bring your attention.
Firstly, all efforts behind the scenes are focused on how to assist
participants in arriving at solutions to issues that are identified by
participants themselves. It is a true support role in that respect. Nothing
else. As you may have noticed I ahve refrain myself posting directly on some
of the issues being discussed not to be seen as directing the debate or
having any particular hidden agenda. I have heard enough!

Secondly, while some of us from the I* organisations have shouldered much of
the cost in terms of both time and money of /1net so far, the intention
going forward is for many other organisations to contribute to get this
running. The initiative can not sustain itself without all these
contributions.

At the moment we are focussed on preparations for the Brazil meeting but
soon after that, we hope that /1net will have provided sufficient value and
worth that others are keen to support this initiative going forward.

I hope that answers all your questions. If you or others have ideas,
suggestions, offers of help and so on I would be happy to hear them.

Thanks.

- a.


_______________________________________________
Steercom mailing list
Steercom at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/steercom




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project




 

On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Tks Anja. I'll look forward to hearing back concerning the set of questions
that I posed either from you or directly from responsible others in 1Net.

 

It would be good to put this matter to rest sooner rather than later.

 

M

 

From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:31 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC;
&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,


Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
1Net

 

Hi Michael and all,

Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more about
how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were shared
with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my
knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation
until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how to
improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have been
requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a user to
interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for that
particular user the experience would actually not be very different than it
is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the weeks to
come. 

Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more.

Best,
Anja

 

On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be more
than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning of
1Net (certainly by myself). 

 

My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) in
arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward 1Net
to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful response.

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net


Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
1Net

 

 

On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that
was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil meeting,
make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial
areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions
and exclusions.  

 

            I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and
accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a
positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger
amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this
point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do
with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy
outcomes of that, and future, events. 

            Regards

 

                        David

 

            


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140215/34200dd5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kerry at kdbsystems.com  Fri Feb 14 23:01:39 2014
From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown)
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 04:01:39 +0000
Subject: [governance] Except from an IETF list message
In-Reply-To: <1wuk8vr784yg5f9b3k6vgypr.1392344998059@email.android.com>
References: <1wuk8vr784yg5f9b3k6vgypr.1392344998059@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538AD6A744F3@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>

One area where the IETF can lead privacy wise is better encryption standards. Now that we know for sure governments are trying to enforce weak standards the IETF can lead the way to ensure standards that are very hard if not impossible to break. I don't think we will ever be able to deal with the privacy issues successfully but we can give people the tools to help them keep some communications private.

Kerry Brown

________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of avri [avri at acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:29 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] Except from an IETF list message

On the practical side and having nothing to do with Brazil, Geneva or Istanbul meetings:

If anyone from CS is looking to get involved in IETF WGs representing privacy and other human rights concerns, but wants a guide to the workings etc of ietf and its WGs, let me know as I am always happy to help people cross the CS - Tech barrier.

In addition to the efforts listed below there is also an opportunity to review existing RFCs for privacy and  pervasive monitoring vulnerabilities.  If you are interested in this kind of activity let me know as we are organizing a project for doing this sort of thing.

avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device


-------- Original message --------

The situation is complex.  There is not a unified technical community, and there is not a unified policy community.

Let's look at three real world projects that  going on right now.  These are just examples off the top of my head.


(1) PAWS (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/paws/charter/)

I really hope that the result of this working group is able to make television whitespace available for data all over the world.  This cannot be successful unless the spectrum regulatory bodies are engaged in the process.  The FCC was the first to engage, and the first versions of the specifications seem to meet their needs, and then OFCOM provided some comments that caused a complete redesign.  I hope others engage very soon so that a global solution is possible.


(2) ECRIT (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/charter/)

I really hope that the result of this working group is able to specify emergency service access on a global scale from every mobile VoIP device.  One challenge is that many governments can reference IETF standards in their regulations.  This could lead to interoperability problems.

(3) STIR (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/stir/charter/)

I really hope that the result of this working group make it more difficult for  robocalling, vishing, and swatting all over the world.


In each of these examples, a different portion of the policy community needs to participate.  I believe they have been invited to do so.  I do not know if they will.

Russ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140215/8ee8bcf4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From joly at punkcast.com  Sun Feb 16 02:59:53 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 02:59:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: Video from UK IGF
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk3pJ5icsSzfc8dA+CnTdjbxnY7JOOfytOrCN66Bj1Vwsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk3pJ5icsSzfc8dA+CnTdjbxnY7JOOfytOrCN66Bj1Vwsw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk39Yx+dKeaysVx7QKcohfxe=2OB+bpB=o6C53_9E9aM_A@mail.gmail.com>

I have posted more of the UK IGF at http://bit.ly/ukigf2014 - still waiting
on early footage from Olivier.


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

>
> I have posted a couple of clips of video I captured from today's UK IGF
> webex
>
> 1)  Panel discussion -- What is your vision for governance of the
> internet? (Conclusion)
> http://youtu.be/0rV9skuJOBI
>
>
> 2) Hon Ed Vaizey MP, Minister for Culture, Communications and the
> Creative Industries + Alun Cairns MP
> http://youtu.be/Bo8OOvxvO3s
>
>
> There is more to come
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140216/b9c7d7b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kabani.asif at gmail.com  Sun Feb 16 06:26:48 2014
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:26:48 +0500
Subject: [governance] MEP Schaake calls for broader discussion of EU
 Plan
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC7o4VF91RbEKN6hTJSW8igRzZ6Ux7DiAfL1XTYTFt28g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52FE067F.3060404@lacnic.net> <CAMz5XN74MwsGkt2OdWeFLsThn=6sOA3M=WvpnR=7VSnRJwuPDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801641FD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CAJwbTiC7o4VF91RbEKN6hTJSW8igRzZ6Ux7DiAfL1XTYTFt28g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOzvoR0A8ccAtryhoWk7r3oWOyxXWUP_WenSAPqCs=7pWg7FCg@mail.gmail.com>

+1

-------
*Asif Kabani*
*Director*

 *Skype: kabaniasif*

*To connect*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
 [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>

[image: www.slideshare.net.png]

http://www.slideshare.net/kabani

Towards A Sustainable Earth:  Print Only When Necessary

------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY:
This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be
confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please
delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.




On 14 February 2014 18:11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Many thanks Wolfgang.
>
> Very interesting. It would be better if the IGF has debates like the one
> being proposed. They allow communities to hear perspectives from all angles.
>
>
> 2014-02-15 0:59 GMT+12:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
>
>>
>> FYI
>>
>>
>> http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/02/mep-calls-for-debate-on-internet-governance-europe/
>>  wolfgang
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140216/97556d5a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From joy at apc.org  Mon Feb 17 01:48:32 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:48:32 +1300
Subject: [governance] Update and next WGEC meeting
Message-ID: <5301B0C0.7050606@apc.org>

Hi all - apologies for any cross postings. This a short note to let you
know the next WGEC meeting starts next week in Geneva and runs Feb 24-28
(5 days, inclusive). For background information about the working group
see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx  Information about the
next meeting is available:
unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=425 
This is the last meeting of the working group which must reach agreement
on recommendations "on how to fully implement [the WSIS] mandate". The
working group report will be an input to the overall review of the
outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2014.
Since the last meeting (last November) a subgroup has been working,
under terms of reference from the WGEC, on further research and
analysis. While the report of that sub-group is not yet available on the
CSTD website (it will be shortly) I am forwarding it for you (see the
message below).
Remote participation to the meeting will be available through WebEx. I
am trying to get more information about this but details are not yet
available on the CSTD website. In the meantime, those wanting to
register for this must email wgec at unctad.org

Kind regards

Joy Liddicoat
www.apc.org


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Final Report of CSTD WG on EC CG
Date: 	Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:43:44 +0000
From: 	Private Sector Phil Rushton <philip.m.rushton at BT.COM>
Reply-To: 	UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
<WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG>
To: 	WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG



Peter
Attached is the compiled responses for consideration by the CSTD WG on
EC. My apologies for not submitting earlier.
This report has been jointly developed by the Co-convenors (Phil Rushton
and Joy Liddicoat).  As well as forwarding to you the compiled responses
this email reports back on

 1. the process used within the Correspondence Group,
 2. issues arising from the process and
 3. observations from the submissions.

In accordance with its Terms of Reference we can report:

  * 19 people volunteered to join the correspondence group mailing list.
    All members of the WGEC were also on the mailing list.
  * The correspondence group provided three update reports to the WGEC
    Chair 30^th November 2013, 11^th   December and 10^th February 2014. 

*Process Used*
The Correspondence Group:
(a)      used a synthesis of 24 broad areas relating to international
public policy issues pertaining to the Internet that was agreed by the
WGEC members and was derived from the 200 issues that were identified in
the spreadsheet developed in the second meeting of the WGEC.  This was
circulated on January 8th 2014, seeking input by 31^st January 2014.
(b)      had no stipulation made on the structure submissions other than
that they should be against the 24 broad issues agreed by the WGEC.  A
spreadsheet developed by one respondent, utilising the submission made
to the WGEC, was well received and subsequently used by many others in
their submissions.
(c)      The spread sheet was taken as the basis for developing the
compilation of responses across the following areas:
(i) where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the
issues in the list;
(ii) identifying the status of mechanisms, if any, and whether they are
addressing the issues; and
(iii) identifying the gaps in order to ascertain what type of
recommendations may be required to be drafted by the WGEC.
(d)  The above deadline of January 31^st for submissions was extended to
7 February at the request of various correspondence group members and by
agreement of the WGEC Chair. A compilation document was shared with the
Correspondence group on 12 February and a final document for
consideration by the WGEC was sent on 14th February 2014.
(e) 19 inputs were received: 4 from government; 6 from technical and
academic community; 5 from civil society (including one joint input from
3 groups); 3 from private sector,  and 1 from an intergovernmental
organisation.  There was one contribution that was blank.
*Issues Arising*

  * Establishing the correspondence email group encountered some
    technical issues and took time to be established.
  * 2 issues were raised within the CG after the agreement of the WGEC
    to the broad areas

  * 3 supporters proposed that "Enabling governments, on an equal
    footing, to participate in the Internet governance process" be a
    broad area in its own right. This issue exists (issue 106) under
    Stakeholders and Governance broad issue.
  * One of 3 supporters raised financial issues including tax as a
    potential broad issue. The issue exists (issue 33)under Applicable
    Jurisdiction, cross border co-ordination.

  * Non receipt of emails (19^th December referral to WGEC members was
    not apparently received by all) raised issues regarding acceptance
    of WGEC decision to the 24 broad areas, specifically with regard to
    the issue 106 above.
  * There was a conscious decision not to specify a formal input
    structure, and whilst it allowed for free format of input, it made
    final compilation difficult.
  * The time available for responding was limited given earlier issues
    in establishing the email list.
  * It would have been easier had interested parties wishing to be part
    of the CG contacted the secretariat directly.

Observations of Inputs

  * The submissions indicate that there are diverse mechanisms carrying
    out work on many of the public policy issues identified. There
    appear to be some areas of overlap and concerns about lack of
    progress in some areas.
  * There is no clear consensus identifying particular gaps and
    therefore no consensus on any recommendations that may be required
    to be drafted by the WGEC. All recommendations are therefore
    included in the summary document.
  * The quality of submissions was good, and a particularly substantive
    submission was received from Kyoto University. We think this
    submission may merit a separate discussion with the WGEC.
  * Analysis of inputs suggest that more research may be required in
    some areas in order for firm conclusions to be drawn

 
The TOR for the CGWGEC provide:
"Any issue that cannot reach consensus in the Correspondence Group will
be referred to the Working Group, with the options that represent the
range of opinions expressed in the Correspondence Group. The final
decision on such issues will be made by the WGEC." 

The compilation of the inputs were circulated, minor amendments were
proposed and, where appropriate, included. No substantive disagreement
was recorded. We therefore submit all the compiled inputs to the WGEC
for consideration in the attached spreadsheet.

We would like to express our appreciation for the assistance of Sam
Dickson and Lea Kaspar in the collation of the issues for the WGEC and
our work.
 
Phil Rushton and Joy Liddicoat
 
Regards
*Phil Rushton*
*Standards and Numbering Policy Strategy*
*BT Technology Service & Operations,*


*Office:  + 44 (0) 1977 594807
Fax :     +44 (0) 1908 862698
Email: *_**__*philip.m.rushton at bt.com*_ <mailto:philip.m.rushton at bt.com>
This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential.
It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're
not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing
or using this information
is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me
know immediately
on the email address above. Thank you.
We monitor our email system, and may record your emails.
British Telecommunications plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England no: 1800000
 
 
 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140217/b73e1e08/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CGoutput (non- PDF)_FINAL.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 379145 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140217/b73e1e08/attachment.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140217/b73e1e08/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at  Mon Feb 17 03:28:46 2014
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:28:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14 March
Message-ID: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Dear all,
may I draw Your attention to a pertinent conference on Shaping the Digital Environment, Ensuring our Rights on the Internet   organized by the Council of Europe and the Austrian Chairmanship of the CoE together with the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy of the University of Graz on 13 and 14 March 2014 in Graz.

See program under: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/GRAZ_Programme_13_February-2014_online%20.pdf

Please, register under: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/default_en.asp

We would be happy to see many of You here!

Wolfgang Benedek
Prof.Dr.Wolfgang Benedek
European Training and Research Centre
on Human Rights and Democracy
of the University of Graz (UNI-ETC)
Elisabethstrasse 50B
A-8010 Graz, Austria

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140217/80387a4b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From justine0512 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 07:00:37 2014
From: justine0512 at gmail.com (Justine Kim)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:00:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14
 March
In-Reply-To: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <CANAajVHVBD6e9MmAg2+P3e+umd2S=sedp+fwM3zGLpS1XNPs3Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Professor Benedek,

Thank you for sharing this information with us. Could we remotely
participate in this Conference?

Best regards,
Justine



On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Benedek, Wolfgang (
wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:

> Dear all,
> may I draw Your attention to a pertinent conference on Shaping the
> Digital Environment, Ensuring our Rights on the Internet   organized by
> the Council of Europe and the Austrian Chairmanship of the CoE together
> with the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and
> Democracy of the University of Graz on 13 and 14 March 2014 in Graz.
>
> See program under:
> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/GRAZ_Programme_13_February-2014_online%20.pdf
>
> Please, register under:
> http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/default_en.asp
>
> We would be happy to see many of You here!
>
> Wolfgang Benedek
>
> Prof.Dr.Wolfgang Benedek
> European Training and Research Centre
> on Human Rights and Democracy
> of the University of Graz (UNI-ETC)
> Elisabethstrasse 50B
> A-8010 Graz, Austria
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140217/d6f74c53/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Feb 17 07:37:52 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:37:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] 3166-7
Message-ID: <E1WFNPv-0006sc-PS@igcaucus.org>

What could be called the "Snowdenian Awareness" has a certain number 
of positive impacts.

1. the first one is that it makes difficult for crime without this 
being noticed to unilateraly take a faster advantage from IUCG 
contributions than the rest if the digital community. This gets rid 
of a killing weight on us. I have therefore advanced the VGN concept 
that unites all our concerns as stakeholders on an equal footing with 
ICANN, the USG, IETF in terms of technical solutions and 
digirelational governance.

2. the second one is the reason why we urgently need our full 
capacity to innovate: the IETF technology is vulnerable. NSAs 
throughout the world carry their job: it is abnormal that it can be 
so easy. It it is easy for them it is easy for competition, ennemies, 
and crime.

3. the third one (taken to the first degree only) is: why was it so 
easy for an external contractor having only signed a form to "curl 
-O" 1.7 million of secret files and to take them on a ride round the 
world. It seems that our data are better protected at Google than at 
the US NSA. This means that our processing management vision is to be 
reviewed. This calls for distributed processing, capabilities, 
information and intellition protection strategies, and a powerful 
consistent precaution doctrine for the Intelligent Systems.

The universe is a "dis/con" history between continuity and 
discontinuity. Both can be managed. Catastrophes, self-organizing 
criticallity, penetrations, etc. happen as edge effects. Everywhere 
we therefore should favor continuity and focus on fringes, building 
smart interfaces that can seamlessly extend continuity into 
discontituty and discontinuity into continuity. Architectonically 
this means to patch the edge with fringe interfaces.

In the internet we have that capacity. It is consistently documented 
through RFC 1958 and 3439 (everything which is not end to end 
datagram transmission is to be carried at the edge, and everything 
MUST be simple), RFC 5895 exemplifies how this can be carried at the 
fringe in the IDNA case and more generaly the OPES (Open Pluggable 
Edge Services) tools address the need (RFC 3238).

In the coming weeks I therefore propose you to review the whole IUCG 
concerns from a VGN point of view, associating a parallel VGNIC 
review in order to obtain an InterUse covenant that will facilitate 
the emergence of an InterTech level to seamlessly support multiple 
technologies over the internet.

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 fatimacambronero at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 08:14:29 2014
From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:14:29 -0300
Subject: [governance] Open Consultations and MAG meeting Remote
 Participation
Message-ID: <CAHY4F=x3=tpyHu6gjwHaHRBg2uxa-+CnNkVuz+XoGfUY+4n+mg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,


>From the IGF Website:



"Participants will be able to join the IGF Open Consultations and MAG
meeting remotely. Live transcription is also available. Instructions on how
to join the Open Consultations and MAG meeting remotely is available
here<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/125-preparatory-process/1568-instructions-for-remote-participants->.
IGF Secretariat will be ready to assist the remote participants with their
inquiries and questions. Questions and inquiries about remote participation
can be sent to  febmeeting at intgovforum.org. The password to the virtual
rooms is IGF14".



Best Regards,

Fatima


-- 
*Fatima Cambronero*
Abogada-Argentina

Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
Twitter: @facambronero
Skype: fatima.cambronero

*Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:*
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

*Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:*
http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/

*Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140217/0653fd34/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From amedinagomez at gmail.com  Mon Feb 17 08:21:59 2014
From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:21:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] Open Consultations and MAG meeting Remote
 Participation
In-Reply-To: <CAHY4F=x3=tpyHu6gjwHaHRBg2uxa-+CnNkVuz+XoGfUY+4n+mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHY4F=x3=tpyHu6gjwHaHRBg2uxa-+CnNkVuz+XoGfUY+4n+mg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM-_sgh758k71FR50MQNZeuT+gdUbyQe1=s-qWUGA7Ju3W60Qg@mail.gmail.com>

Fatima muchas gracias por la información
Buen viaje
Antonio


2014-02-17 8:14 GMT-05:00 Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero at gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
>
>
> From the IGF Website:
>
>
>
> "Participants will be able to join the IGF Open Consultations and MAG
> meeting remotely. Live transcription is also available. Instructions on how
> to join the Open Consultations and MAG meeting remotely is available here<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/125-preparatory-process/1568-instructions-for-remote-participants->.
> IGF Secretariat will be ready to assist the remote participants with their
> inquiries and questions. Questions and inquiries about remote participation
> can be sent to  febmeeting at intgovforum.org. The password to the virtual
> rooms is IGF14".
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Fatima
>
>
> --
> *Fatima Cambronero*
> Abogada-Argentina
>
> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
> Twitter: @facambronero
> Skype: fatima.cambronero
>
> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:*
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:*
> http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/
>
> *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140217/ab22f0a3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Feb 18 00:51:04 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:21:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] who is responsible for balkanisation of the Internet
Message-ID: <5302F4C8.4040004@itforchange.net>

The below piece shows in simple and clear terms

1. who is responsible for balakanisation of the global Internet (wrong 
guesses - developing country governments, right guess - the US)

2. What needs to be done to stop it (wrong guess - more fluff in the 
name of Internet governance, right guess - international agreements 
about some basic decencies and protocols vis a vis the global Internet)

But as they say, one can wake up a sleeping person, but not someone who 
is pretending to be asleep... parminder


15 February 2014 Last updated at 19:22 GMT


  Data protection: Angela Merkel proposes Europe network

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is proposing building up a European 
communications network to help improve data protection.

It would avoid emails and other data automatically passing through the 
United States.

In her weekly podcast, she said she would raise the issue on Wednesday 
with French President Francois Hollande.

Revelations of mass surveillance by the US National Security Agency 
(NSA) have prompted huge concern in Europe.

Disclosures by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden suggested even the 
mobile phones of US allies, such as Mrs Merkel, had been monitored by 
American spies.

Classified NSA documents revealed that large amounts of personal data 
are collected from the internet by US and British surveillance.

Mrs Merkel criticised the fact that Facebook and Google can be based in 
countries with low levels of data protection while carrying out business 
in nations that offer more rigorous safeguards.

"Above all, we'll talk about European providers that offer security for 
our citizens, so that one shouldn't have to send emails and other 
information across the Atlantic," she said.

"Rather, one could build up a communication network inside Europe."

Sensitive

There was no doubt that Europe had to do more in the realm of data 
protection, she said.

A French official was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying that the 
government in Paris planned to take up the German initiative.

Personal privacy is a sensitive issue in Germany where extensive 
surveillance was carried out under the Nazis and in communist East Germany.

A foreign policy spokesman for Mrs Merkel's Christian Democrats, Philipp 
Missfelder, recently said revelations about US spying had helped bring 
relations with Washington down to their worst level since the US-led 
invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Germany has been trying to persuade Washington to agree to a "no-spy" 
agreement but without success.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26210053
BBC News

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140218/fea22b57/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 18 02:51:34 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:51:34 -0800
Subject: [governance] who is responsible for balkanisation of the
 Internet
In-Reply-To: <5302F4C8.4040004@itforchange.net>
References: <5302F4C8.4040004@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <ED7E3B72-71CF-4B46-A9E2-60126ADF862C@hserus.net>

The problem with these comparisons to Balkanization is that it takes a huge lot to split the internet.  And not all that is suggested might even be practical.

Do you have some slightly more technical specifics on how this call for a European Internet would be implemented?

--srs (iPad)

> On 17-Feb-2014, at 21:51, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> The below piece shows in simple and clear terms 
> 
> 1. who is responsible for balakanisation of the global Internet  (wrong guesses - developing country governments, right guess - the US)
> 
> 2. What needs to be done to stop it (wrong guess - more fluff in the name of Internet governance, right guess - international agreements about some basic decencies and protocols vis a vis the global Internet)
> 
> But as they say, one can wake up a sleeping person, but not someone who is pretending to be asleep... parminder 
> 
> 
> 15 February 2014 Last updated at 19:22 GMT
> Data protection: Angela Merkel proposes Europe network
> 
> German Chancellor Angela Merkel is proposing building up a European communications network to help improve data protection.
> 
> It would avoid emails and other data automatically passing through the United States.
> 
> In her weekly podcast, she said she would raise the issue on Wednesday with French President Francois Hollande.
> 
> Revelations of mass surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA) have prompted huge concern in Europe.
> 
> Disclosures by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden suggested even the mobile phones of US allies, such as Mrs Merkel, had been monitored by American spies.
> 
> Classified NSA documents revealed that large amounts of personal data are collected from the internet by US and British surveillance.
> 
> Mrs Merkel criticised the fact that Facebook and Google can be based in countries with low levels of data protection while carrying out business in nations that offer more rigorous safeguards.
> 
> "Above all, we'll talk about European providers that offer security for our citizens, so that one shouldn't have to send emails and other information across the Atlantic," she said.
> 
> "Rather, one could build up a communication network inside Europe."
> 
> Sensitive
> There was no doubt that Europe had to do more in the realm of data protection, she said.
> 
> A French official was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying that the government in Paris planned to take up the German initiative.
> 
> Personal privacy is a sensitive issue in Germany where extensive surveillance was carried out under the Nazis and in communist East Germany.
> 
> A foreign policy spokesman for Mrs Merkel's Christian Democrats, Philipp Missfelder, recently said revelations about US spying had helped bring relations with Washington down to their worst level since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
> 
> Germany has been trying to persuade Washington to agree to a "no-spy" agreement but without success.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26210053
> BBC News
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140217/4e4bd47b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Feb 18 03:39:07 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:39:07 +0900
Subject: [governance] who is responsible for balkanisation of the
 Internet
In-Reply-To: <ED7E3B72-71CF-4B46-A9E2-60126ADF862C@hserus.net>
References: <5302F4C8.4040004@itforchange.net> <ED7E3B72-71CF-4B46-A9E2-60126ADF862C@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <F3CB2BF2-65D8-4196-AFF7-C72593D7FCB4@glocom.ac.jp>

define: Balkanization (Google... irony :-)

(balkanize) divide a territory into small, hostile states

I don't see how any of the proposals, Merkel's latest or earlier ideas about building new submarine cable, etc. would Balkanize (except a daft plan for a German email system, which sounded like Deutsche Telekom trying to recreate AOL).  Keeping traffic and data local will not cause any separation of Internet. 

Those warning of Balkanization are U.S. business interests, those that will suffer economically should any of these plans actually come off.  It's a tactic, FUD (define: fud)

Adam


On Feb 18, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> The problem with these comparisons to Balkanization is that it takes a huge lot to split the internet.  And not all that is suggested might even be practical.
> 
> Do you have some slightly more technical specifics on how this call for a European Internet would be implemented?
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 17-Feb-2014, at 21:51, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> The below piece shows in simple and clear terms 
>> 
>> 1. who is responsible for balakanisation of the global Internet  (wrong guesses - developing country governments, right guess - the US)
>> 
>> 2. What needs to be done to stop it (wrong guess - more fluff in the name of Internet governance, right guess - international agreements about some basic decencies and protocols vis a vis the global Internet)
>> 
>> But as they say, one can wake up a sleeping person, but not someone who is pretending to be asleep... parminder 
>> 
>> 
>> 15 February 2014 Last updated at 19:22 GMT
>> Data protection: Angela Merkel proposes Europe network
>> 
>> German Chancellor Angela Merkel is proposing building up a European communications network to help improve data protection.
>> 
>> It would avoid emails and other data automatically passing through the United States.
>> 
>> In her weekly podcast, she said she would raise the issue on Wednesday with French President Francois Hollande.
>> 
>> Revelations of mass surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA) have prompted huge concern in Europe.
>> 
>> Disclosures by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden suggested even the mobile phones of US allies, such as Mrs Merkel, had been monitored by American spies.
>> 
>> Classified NSA documents revealed that large amounts of personal data are collected from the internet by US and British surveillance.
>> 
>> Mrs Merkel criticised the fact that Facebook and Google can be based in countries with low levels of data protection while           carrying out business in nations that offer more rigorous safeguards.
>> 
>> "Above all, we'll talk about European providers that offer security for our citizens, so that one shouldn't have to send emails and other information across the Atlantic," she said.
>> 
>> "Rather, one could build up a communication network inside Europe."
>> 
>> Sensitive
>> There was no doubt that Europe had to do more in the realm of data protection, she said.
>> 
>> A French official was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying that the government in Paris planned to take up the German initiative.
>> 
>> Personal privacy is a sensitive issue in Germany where extensive surveillance was carried out under the Nazis and in communist East Germany.
>> 
>> A foreign policy spokesman for Mrs Merkel's Christian Democrats, Philipp Missfelder, recently said revelations about US spying had helped bring relations with Washington down to their worst level since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
>> 
>> Germany has been trying to persuade Washington to agree to a "no-spy" agreement but without success.
>> 
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26210053
>> BBC News
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 18 04:25:34 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 01:25:34 -0800
Subject: [governance] who is responsible for balkanisation of the
 Internet
In-Reply-To: <F3CB2BF2-65D8-4196-AFF7-C72593D7FCB4@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <5302F4C8.4040004@itforchange.net> <ED7E3B72-71CF-4B46-A9E2-60126ADF862C@hserus.net> <F3CB2BF2-65D8-4196-AFF7-C72593D7FCB4@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <F56CE85D-9CC6-4E8F-A739-F614C93F3AF9@hserus.net>

I am happy that at least some people here are grounded in reality :)

US business interests, or maybe reporters with a hazy grasp of Internet routing and an even hazier memory of high school history classes .. Hanlon's razor would probably present the second option as more plausible, ignorance rather than malice.

--srs (iPad)

> On 18-Feb-2014, at 0:39, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> define: Balkanization (Google... irony :-)
> 
> (balkanize) divide a territory into small, hostile states
> 
> I don't see how any of the proposals, Merkel's latest or earlier ideas about building new submarine cable, etc. would Balkanize (except a daft plan for a German email system, which sounded like Deutsche Telekom trying to recreate AOL).  Keeping traffic and data local will not cause any separation of Internet. 
> 
> Those warning of Balkanization are U.S. business interests, those that will suffer economically should any of these plans actually come off.  It's a tactic, FUD (define: fud)
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> 
>> The problem with these comparisons to Balkanization is that it takes a huge lot to split the internet.  And not all that is suggested might even be practical.
>> 
>> Do you have some slightly more technical specifics on how this call for a European Internet would be implemented?
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>>> On 17-Feb-2014, at 21:51, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The below piece shows in simple and clear terms 
>>> 
>>> 1. who is responsible for balakanisation of the global Internet  (wrong guesses - developing country governments, right guess - the US)
>>> 
>>> 2. What needs to be done to stop it (wrong guess - more fluff in the name of Internet governance, right guess - international agreements about some basic decencies and protocols vis a vis the global Internet)
>>> 
>>> But as they say, one can wake up a sleeping person, but not someone who is pretending to be asleep... parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 15 February 2014 Last updated at 19:22 GMT
>>> Data protection: Angela Merkel proposes Europe network
>>> 
>>> German Chancellor Angela Merkel is proposing building up a European communications network to help improve data protection.
>>> 
>>> It would avoid emails and other data automatically passing through the United States.
>>> 
>>> In her weekly podcast, she said she would raise the issue on Wednesday with French President Francois Hollande.
>>> 
>>> Revelations of mass surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA) have prompted huge concern in Europe.
>>> 
>>> Disclosures by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden suggested even the mobile phones of US allies, such as Mrs Merkel, had been monitored by American spies.
>>> 
>>> Classified NSA documents revealed that large amounts of personal data are collected from the internet by US and British surveillance.
>>> 
>>> Mrs Merkel criticised the fact that Facebook and Google can be based in countries with low levels of data protection while           carrying out business in nations that offer more rigorous safeguards.
>>> 
>>> "Above all, we'll talk about European providers that offer security for our citizens, so that one shouldn't have to send emails and other information across the Atlantic," she said.
>>> 
>>> "Rather, one could build up a communication network inside Europe."
>>> 
>>> Sensitive
>>> There was no doubt that Europe had to do more in the realm of data protection, she said.
>>> 
>>> A French official was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying that the government in Paris planned to take up the German initiative.
>>> 
>>> Personal privacy is a sensitive issue in Germany where extensive surveillance was carried out under the Nazis and in communist East Germany.
>>> 
>>> A foreign policy spokesman for Mrs Merkel's Christian Democrats, Philipp Missfelder, recently said revelations about US spying had helped bring relations with Washington down to their worst level since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
>>> 
>>> Germany has been trying to persuade Washington to agree to a "no-spy" agreement but without success.
>>> 
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26210053
>>> BBC News
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 18 05:22:00 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 02:22:00 -0800
Subject: [governance] For a change an oped in the Hindu that advocates
 multistakeholderism rather than support for the CIRP
Message-ID: <21108FDE-E86D-42D3-9F2B-BABE99B98AEA@hserus.net>

From the Indian mag member

http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece/

The last two or three articles I have read in that paper have been from sundry retired bureaucrats, former UN ambassadors from India etc about how India should still push the CIRP (which view is mostly with notable exceptions incompatible with civil society thought, I am glad to say).  So, here's the article.

--srs (iPad)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140218/bc59293d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From chetankhanna93 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 18 06:26:17 2014
From: chetankhanna93 at gmail.com (Chetan Khanna)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:56:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] For a change an oped in the Hindu that advocates
 multistakeholderism rather than support for the CIRP
In-Reply-To: <21108FDE-E86D-42D3-9F2B-BABE99B98AEA@hserus.net>
References: <21108FDE-E86D-42D3-9F2B-BABE99B98AEA@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAN7sLM97qAB+kanFn+7ARFv1Ubj9ue5VMewmA=DUCq=Rt6wPjg@mail.gmail.com>

Another article which touches only the tip of the iceberg. And there is
indeed no takeaway. :p

Its indeed interesting that there is a constant criticism on the advocacy
for anti-multistakeholdherhism in India. But please do let me know whom are
we protecting? Big MNC's.Question arises how many jobs do they create and
how many job loss do they lead to?

Youth in policymaking? Am a youth myself but do know for a fact that we are
not capable to make policies regarding peer to peer, free software or for
that matter copyright. i can learn but policy making is definitely not our
cup of tea.

And to even think of advocating a free and transparent-ism in a society
which has not known individualism in its 2000 year history is almost like
opening a can of worms.

Interestingly, to even think that India is a service industry which is
dominated by IT. The claims of a multistakeholderism in India should be
looked as completely shallow within the country.

Yes, multi-lateralism is bad but we cannot just impose a completely new
culture in our society. We did try it once when we became independent. The
result , we became a noisy democracy! So by backing multi-stakeholdherhism
where are we heading?

Having going through the arguments of civil society for the past 6 months
am only surprised that "status" matters and not ideas!


Best
Chetan



On 18 February 2014 15:52, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> From the Indian mag member
>
>
> http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece/
>
> The last two or three articles I have read in that paper have been from
> sundry retired bureaucrats, former UN ambassadors from India etc about how
> India should still push the CIRP (which view is mostly with notable
> exceptions incompatible with civil society thought, I am glad to say).  So,
> here's the article.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140218/47bf6b14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 18 09:39:08 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:39:08 -0600
Subject: [governance] For a change an oped in the Hindu that advocates
 multistakeholderism rather than support for the CIRP
In-Reply-To: <CAN7sLM97qAB+kanFn+7ARFv1Ubj9ue5VMewmA=DUCq=Rt6wPjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <21108FDE-E86D-42D3-9F2B-BABE99B98AEA@hserus.net>
 <CAN7sLM97qAB+kanFn+7ARFv1Ubj9ue5VMewmA=DUCq=Rt6wPjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140218143908.GB29916@hserus.net>

Chetan Khanna [18/02/14 16:56 +0530]:
>Its indeed interesting that there is a constant criticism on the advocacy
>for anti-multistakeholdherhism in India. But please do let me know whom are
>we protecting? Big MNC's.Question arises how many jobs do they create and
>how many job loss do they lead to?

Umm. Google / Microsoft / other MNCs collectively employ several lakh
people. What job loss is led to - a hypothetical one which would be, if
they didn't join those, didn't join their indian counterparts like TCS and
Infosys, and actually set up startups and hired people.  Having actually
had to try hiring people for a startup, and then have the kid's parents
tell him "no, I never heard of this company, join tcs where you have an
offer" .. 

>Youth in policymaking? Am a youth myself but do know for a fact that we are
>not capable to make policies regarding peer to peer, free software or for
>that matter copyright. i can learn but policy making is definitely not our
>cup of tea.

Are you so sure? You hang around the right places, listening to the right
people, till at a certain stage you get an opinion that you are not afraid
to voice.  In a policy development process the knowledge required is a bit
more complex and so you tend to be no longer described as "a youth" by the
time you feel able to contribute. But well, I am 37. And there are people
in their 60s here. And M.Pouzin is already 82.

>And to even think of advocating a free and transparent-ism in a society
>which has not known individualism in its 2000 year history is almost like
>opening a can of worms.

Sometimes cans of worms just do need to be opened. How else are you going
to catch any fish at all?

>Interestingly, to even think that India is a service industry which is
>dominated by IT. The claims of a multistakeholderism in India should be
>looked as completely shallow within the country.

Are you so sure?  If you get to be in the industry and know other players
there, you might both agree - and disagree - with your statement.

>Yes, multi-lateralism is bad but we cannot just impose a completely new
>culture in our society. We did try it once when we became independent. The
>result , we became a noisy democracy! So by backing multi-stakeholdherhism
>where are we heading?

Sure. Maybe russia should have remained under the tsars, and the americans
under the british crown.

>Having going through the arguments of civil society for the past 6 months
>am only surprised that "status" matters and not ideas!

You are seeing the uglier side of civil society where - like anywhere else
- there are a few people for whom status matters. Those are not
stakeholders, they are steakholders. But don't confuse that minority with
all of civil society unless you want to include yourself, for example, in
it.  Find other people you can agree with, join them formally or
informally.

	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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Tue Feb 18 10:03:12 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:03:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] For a change an oped in the Hindu that advocates
 multistakeholderism rather than support for the CIRP
In-Reply-To: <20140218143908.GB29916@hserus.net>
References: <21108FDE-E86D-42D3-9F2B-BABE99B98AEA@hserus.net> <CAN7sLM97qAB+kanFn+7ARFv1Ubj9ue5VMewmA=DUCq=Rt6wPjg@mail.gmail.com> <20140218143908.GB29916@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <0845D45E-0DEE-4961-B27C-C2DBD652BF57@gmail.com>

Dear Chetan,

We don’t know each other, but I want to assure you that Suresh is giving you very good and useful advice.  

George Sadowsky


On Feb 18, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> Chetan Khanna [18/02/14 16:56 +0530]:
>> Its indeed interesting that there is a constant criticism on the advocacy
>> for anti-multistakeholdherhism in India. But please do let me know whom are
>> we protecting? Big MNC's.Question arises how many jobs do they create and
>> how many job loss do they lead to?
> 
> Umm. Google / Microsoft / other MNCs collectively employ several lakh
> people. What job loss is led to - a hypothetical one which would be, if
> they didn't join those, didn't join their indian counterparts like TCS and
> Infosys, and actually set up startups and hired people.  Having actually
> had to try hiring people for a startup, and then have the kid's parents
> tell him "no, I never heard of this company, join tcs where you have an
> offer" .. 
>> Youth in policymaking? Am a youth myself but do know for a fact that we are
>> not capable to make policies regarding peer to peer, free software or for
>> that matter copyright. i can learn but policy making is definitely not our
>> cup of tea.
> 
> Are you so sure? You hang around the right places, listening to the right
> people, till at a certain stage you get an opinion that you are not afraid
> to voice.  In a policy development process the knowledge required is a bit
> more complex and so you tend to be no longer described as "a youth" by the
> time you feel able to contribute. But well, I am 37. And there are people
> in their 60s here. And M.Pouzin is already 82.
> 
>> And to even think of advocating a free and transparent-ism in a society
>> which has not known individualism in its 2000 year history is almost like
>> opening a can of worms.
> 
> Sometimes cans of worms just do need to be opened. How else are you going
> to catch any fish at all?
> 
>> Interestingly, to even think that India is a service industry which is
>> dominated by IT. The claims of a multistakeholderism in India should be
>> looked as completely shallow within the country.
> 
> Are you so sure?  If you get to be in the industry and know other players
> there, you might both agree - and disagree - with your statement.
> 
>> Yes, multi-lateralism is bad but we cannot just impose a completely new
>> culture in our society. We did try it once when we became independent. The
>> result , we became a noisy democracy! So by backing multi-stakeholdherhism
>> where are we heading?
> 
> Sure. Maybe russia should have remained under the tsars, and the americans
> under the british crown.
> 
>> Having going through the arguments of civil society for the past 6 months
>> am only surprised that "status" matters and not ideas!
> 
> You are seeing the uglier side of civil society where - like anywhere else
> - there are a few people for whom status matters. Those are not
> stakeholders, they are steakholders. But don't confuse that minority with
> all of civil society unless you want to include yourself, for example, in
> it.  Find other people you can agree with, join them formally or
> informally.
> 
> 	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 suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 18 10:29:19 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:29:19 -0600
Subject: [governance] For a change an oped in the Hindu that advocates
 multistakeholderism rather than support for the CIRP
In-Reply-To: <0845D45E-0DEE-4961-B27C-C2DBD652BF57@gmail.com>
References: <21108FDE-E86D-42D3-9F2B-BABE99B98AEA@hserus.net>
 <CAN7sLM97qAB+kanFn+7ARFv1Ubj9ue5VMewmA=DUCq=Rt6wPjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140218143908.GB29916@hserus.net>
 <0845D45E-0DEE-4961-B27C-C2DBD652BF57@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140218152919.GA2663@hserus.net>

George Sadowsky [18/02/14 10:03 -0500]:
>Dear Chetan,
>
>We don’t know each other, but I want to assure you that Suresh is giving
you very good and useful advice.
>
>George Sadowsky

Seriously, I am honored. Thanks, George.

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 valeriab at apc.org  Tue Feb 18 16:37:55 2014
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:37:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] APC's inputs for 2014 and reflection on IGF 2013
Message-ID: <492B37E1-AF1E-46B3-BFDC-725B618ADB55@apc.org>

Dear all, 

APC's contributions for IGF 2014 and a reflection on IGF 2013 are available online at  http://www.apc.org/en/node/18977/ 

Your comments are welcome. 

Best, 

Valeria 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From chetankhanna93 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 18 21:47:44 2014
From: chetankhanna93 at gmail.com (Chetan Khanna)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:17:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] For a change an oped in the Hindu that advocates
 multistakeholderism rather than support for the CIRP
In-Reply-To: <20140218152919.GA2663@hserus.net>
References: <21108FDE-E86D-42D3-9F2B-BABE99B98AEA@hserus.net>
	<CAN7sLM97qAB+kanFn+7ARFv1Ubj9ue5VMewmA=DUCq=Rt6wPjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140218143908.GB29916@hserus.net>
	<0845D45E-0DEE-4961-B27C-C2DBD652BF57@gmail.com>
	<20140218152919.GA2663@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAN7sLM9fbCoPe6T0yGhThDtYVqMuVCie+eg-Y0S0oATOg=0fgQ@mail.gmail.com>

before you get in the technicalities. have to ask you one thing. in order
to solve the problems of India just building jobs is a guarantee of a
better livelihood? Or are we just beating about the bush as usual? Have we
seen the attrition rates? Rates of underemployment? So what are we driving
at?
The problem is with a sycophant culture we forget what is important and
what is not. Just a case in point do we not know the whole industry has
moved from an outdoor game to an angry bird. The question arises do the
youth know anything except playing the game?
Sometimes cans of worms just do need to be opened. How else are you going
to catch any fish at all?
-In a society which is 67% rural and 33% urban. Hah!

The rest of the questions i do not find worth answering. They are useless
and are only dismissive. I believe you urself do not what you are saying.

And for the benefit of all the mail-list readers would like you to read

http://cgcsblog.asc.upenn.edu/2014/02/14/is-the-internet-becoming-a-new-political-mantra-in-india/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CGCSMediaWire+%28The+Center+for+Global+Communication+Studies+%28CGCS%29%29


On 18 February 2014 20:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> George Sadowsky [18/02/14 10:03 -0500]:
>
>  Dear Chetan,
>>
>> We don't know each other, but I want to assure you that Suresh is giving
>>
> you very good and useful advice.
>
>>
>> George Sadowsky
>>
>
> Seriously, I am honored. Thanks, George.
>
> srs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140219/d1c4daca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 18 22:28:57 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:28:57 -0800
Subject: [governance] For a change an oped in the Hindu that advocates
 multistakeholderism rather than support for the CIRP
In-Reply-To: <CAN7sLM9fbCoPe6T0yGhThDtYVqMuVCie+eg-Y0S0oATOg=0fgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <21108FDE-E86D-42D3-9F2B-BABE99B98AEA@hserus.net> <CAN7sLM97qAB+kanFn+7ARFv1Ubj9ue5VMewmA=DUCq=Rt6wPjg@mail.gmail.com> <20140218143908.GB29916@hserus.net> <0845D45E-0DEE-4961-B27C-C2DBD652BF57@gmail.com> <20140218152919.GA2663@hserus.net> <CAN7sLM9fbCoPe6T0yGhThDtYVqMuVCie+eg-Y0S0oATOg=0fgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0AB6CBAA-4FD5-4861-B228-27757DB884B9@hserus.net>

> On 18-Feb-2014, at 18:47, Chetan Khanna <chetankhanna93 at gmail.com> wrote:
> before you get in the technicalities. have to ask you one thing. in order to solve the problems of India just building jobs is a guarantee of a better livelihood? Or are we just beating about the bush as usual? Have we seen the attrition rates? Rates of underemployment? So what are we driving at?


You are asking me to prove a negative.  If you want a correlation between building jobs and the economy, GDP, and other measures of people's livelihood, I must refer you to any number of articles by economists who will examine this with more nuance than this.

> The rest of the questions i do not find worth answering. They are useless and are only dismissive. I believe you urself do not what you are saying.

I think we have a communication gap here so I won't discuss this with you any further, except to ask one question about your cited article below.

> 
> And for the benefit of all the mail-list readers would like you to read
> 
> http://cgcsblog.asc.upenn.edu/2014/02/14/is-the-internet-becoming-a-new-political-mantra-in-india/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CGCSMediaWire+%28The+Center+for+Global+Communication+Studies+%28CGCS%29%29
> 

So - is the argument that the internet is being heavily used (and also massively abused) in political campaigns in India and around the world supposed to be at odds with the various calls of support for multistakeholderism and free expression on the Internet?

In a more rigidly controlled internet, opposition political party activists would be gagged and censored from using the internet to express their opinions, let alone campaign for their chosen candidate.  That is certainly the case in more than one country in the world.

India, so far, remains constitutionally committed to free speech [with some limits that are continually tested in court] and so far, has a telecom ministry that continues to advocate multistakeholderism (as I heard Minister Sibal mention in his keynote at a recent conference) and also has some other ministries that remain equally committed to multilateral internet governance that remains solely an intergovernmental affair.

I must confess, I can't quite see your point here.

-suresh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140218/cb1ae415/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Feb 19 04:36:00 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:36:00 +0900
Subject: [governance] Informal MAG meeting this morning
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKg=yghYaKnDtMOH2tBzpL_BxSQqaRfd_qZ+cZa2BW40Lw@mail.gmail.com>

Just to be open, some 20+ MAG members gathered at the cafe
in Palais de Nation around 9:20 to get informal introduction each
other, discussed about how to strengthen IGF, among others,
in view of the second term ending last year.

I hope some reporting be sent, as well.

Now, IGF Open Consultation is stating, big applause to the outgoing Interim
Chair, Markus, and welcoming Janis.


izumi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140219/3eb724ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Feb 19 17:59:56 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:59:56 +1100
Subject: [governance] Survey on Civil Society Steering Group options
Message-ID: <EDAF80F2C3CE4E21A0C5B19D9C211411@Toshiba>

Below is a link to a survey set up so that you can input your thoughts on the future of the Civil Society Steering Group – which was set up in haste to deal with some nomination issues where it was important that civil society present joint nominations. The aim is to expand this group and your input is welcome into how this should be done.

Survey closes end of February.


http://igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=75933&lang=en


Ian Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/30c39095/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Feb 20 06:47:22 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:47:22 -0300
Subject: [governance] Agenda EMC meeting
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.

Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an
extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
should be discussed and we will keep you informed.

Thanks
Marilia

Agenda:

Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)

Expression of Interest
    a. Report about current status
    b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar
15th

Content contribution process
    a. Document drafting
    b. Workflow with other committees

Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
    a. List of organizations
    b. Amount of seats for special invitees

Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
    a. Updates
    b. Remote participation



-
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/8f2fb006/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 20 06:55:21 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:25:21 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net>

Marilia/ Adam

Extension of deadline is very much needed. especially since the WGEC 
will finish its work on the 28th.. Not only a lot of us who will be busy 
with WGEC need some time after that to submit inputs, what happens or 
does not happen at the final WGEC meeting may have some bearing on the 
inputs. So best to extend the deadline for 10-15 days.. Best wishes. 
parminder


On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:17 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>
> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an
> extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
> should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>
> Thanks
> Marilia
>
> Agenda:
>
> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>
> Expression of Interest
>      a. Report about current status
>      b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar
> 15th
>
> Content contribution process
>      a. Document drafting
>      b. Workflow with other committees
>
> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>      a. List of organizations
>      b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>
> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>      a. Updates
>      b. Remote participation
>
>
>
> -
> *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
> ----------------------------------------
> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/3de02bb1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Feb 20 07:05:41 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:05:41 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A31D9551-A251-489C-BA40-2C1C383E49C2@glocom.ac.jp>

Minutes of the last 1net steering committee call might also be of interest.  EMC co-chairs made some lengthy comments.

These minutes are draft so note they might change/be corrected etc. But they are from the 1net steering committee public list archive <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/attachments/20140217/73fb7eed/Draft-SCNoM-130214-0001.pdf>

Adam


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft-SCNoM-130214-0001.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 63180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/215e2756/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------




On Feb 20, 2014, at 8:47 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know. 
> 
> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
> 
> Thanks
> Marilia
> 
> Agenda:
> 
> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
> 
> Expression of Interest
>     a. Report about current status
>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar 15th
> 
> Content contribution process
>     a. Document drafting
>     b. Workflow with other committees
> 
> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>     a. List of organizations
>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees   
> 
> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>     a. Updates
>     b. Remote participation 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Feb 20 07:08:20 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:08:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh12BpZjXPQqczqQFpBZhV9p+g4OageKh8Y8duAe5uFPLww@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marilia, all

Can we request extension to  March 8?

Thanks

N



On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>
> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request
> an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
> should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>
> Thanks
> Marilia
>
> Agenda:
>
> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>
> Expression of Interest
>     a. Report about current status
>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar
> 15th
>
> Content contribution process
>     a. Document drafting
>     b. Workflow with other committees
>
> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>     a. List of organizations
>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>
> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>     a. Updates
>     b. Remote participation
>
>
>
> -
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/82c3d4e8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Feb 20 07:09:40 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:09:40 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder,

Yes, it would be very important. We will convey this point. We only have a
trade-off we need to try to minimize: the more time we give to inputs, the
less time EMC will have to work on an initial draft document. In the 2 days
of the meeting, we will only have about 12 hours of actual work in
sessions, so most of the people though it would be useful to have an
initial input document, which, of course, participants are completely free
to change. Lets see what can be done in terms of schedule. Will get back
about that after the call.

Marilia


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:55 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Marilia/ Adam
>
> Extension of deadline is very much needed. especially since the WGEC will
> finish its work on the 28th.. Not only a lot of us who will be busy with
> WGEC need some time after that to submit inputs, what happens or does not
> happen at the final WGEC meeting may have some bearing on the inputs. So
> best to extend the deadline for 10-15 days.. Best wishes. parminder
>
>
>  On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:17 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>
> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an
> extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
> should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>
> Thanks
> Marilia
>
> Agenda:
>
> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>
> Expression of Interest
>     a. Report about current status
>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar
> 15th
>
> Content contribution process
>     a. Document drafting
>     b. Workflow with other committees
>
> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>     a. List of organizations
>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>
> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>     a. Updates
>     b. Remote participation
>
>
>
> -
> *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 associatewww.diplomacy.edu
>
> ----------------------------------------
> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
>
>
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/6025a577/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Feb 20 07:11:59 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:11:59 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12BpZjXPQqczqQFpBZhV9p+g4OageKh8Y8duAe5uFPLww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh12BpZjXPQqczqQFpBZhV9p+g4OageKh8Y8duAe5uFPLww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1e6Y7aqzFSsfPJzdT2MAr1hq6SCYgW1dr8fe2vcAYDZw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Nnenna,
I think that March 8 is the max we can stretch our schedule. My that's my
personal opinion only.
Marilia


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marilia, all
>
> Can we request extension to  March 8?
>
> Thanks
>
> N
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
>> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
>> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>>
>> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request
>> an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
>> should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Marilia
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>>
>> Expression of Interest
>>     a. Report about current status
>>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar
>> 15th
>>
>> Content contribution process
>>     a. Document drafting
>>     b. Workflow with other committees
>>
>> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>>     a. List of organizations
>>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>>
>> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>>     a. Updates
>>     b. Remote participation
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> *Marília Maciel*
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/f111ae95/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From valeriab at apc.org  Thu Feb 20 07:16:02 2014
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 07:16:02 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BE49ABDE-11E9-445F-A1B4-5C02C1D9FEBC@apc.org>

Dear Marilia, 

Extension of deadline for content submissions would be extremely useful

Valeria

El 20/02/2014, a las 6:47, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> escribió:

> Dear all,
> 
> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know. 
> 
> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
> 
> Thanks
> Marilia
> 
> Agenda:
> 
> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
> 
> Expression of Interest
>     a. Report about current status
>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar 15th
> 
> Content contribution process
>     a. Document drafting
>     b. Workflow with other committees
> 
> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>     a. List of organizations
>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees   
> 
> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>     a. Updates
>     b. Remote participation 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------
Valeria Betancourt
Directora / Manager
Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme
Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
Progressive Communications, APC
http://www.apc.org





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/07c92c41/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Feb 20 09:44:25 2014
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:44:25 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <BE49ABDE-11E9-445F-A1B4-5C02C1D9FEBC@apc.org>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BE49ABDE-11E9-445F-A1B4-5C02C1D9FEBC@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTrSdScZLa8=ifV5wSACVmMLsiaCHmFdWMdAuTCDLnb=wQ@mail.gmail.com>

Marilia,
Could you share with us the pre-schedule dates for the next meetings of EC?
It could be extremely usefull as it would help us to compile on going
demands in time.
Best
Joana
On 20 Feb 2014 09:16, "Valeria Betancourt" <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear Marilia,
>
> Extension of deadline for content submissions would be extremely useful
>
> Valeria
>
> El 20/02/2014, a las 6:47, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>
> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request
> an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
> should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>
> Thanks
> Marilia
>
> Agenda:
>
> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>
> Expression of Interest
>     a. Report about current status
>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar
> 15th
>
> Content contribution process
>     a. Document drafting
>     b. Workflow with other committees
>
> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>     a. List of organizations
>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>
> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>     a. Updates
>     b. Remote participation
>
>
>
> -
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> -------------
> Valeria Betancourt
> Directora / Manager
> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
> Information Policy Programme
> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
> Progressive Communications, APC
> http://www.apc.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/c2a4b084/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Feb 20 10:31:51 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:31:51 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,

The call has just ended. The official summary will be made public by the
Secretariat and we will forward it to the list. Below are some unofficial
remarks based on my own understanding. Adam and Carlos can add. Some of the
most important points discussed today encompassed:

- Deadline for substantive contributions will be postponed for *March 8*.
We can't stress enough, however, how important it is to receive
contributions *as soon as possible, please*. This will tremendously help
the secretariat with the summary and will help the subsequent work of the
EMC;
- Size of contributions: the number of characters will increase, especially
on the contribution about frameworks. Please refer to the website soon for
this update;
- Visa will be free for participants of the meeting, but they need to
present an invitation letter for that purpose;
-  Overall, registration for the Conference is still slow (353 people),
although Business and CS is going in a good pace. I think this is expected,
as stakeholders have different timings to engage. I would suggest that some
of us here that are mainly Academics register under the Academic sector;
- During the next days discussions of selection criteria will start. Again,
selection will only take place if needed. If you have suggestions of
criteria, please share;
- The organization of hubs around the world will be encouraged. Training
and online assistance will be offered to hub organizers;
- The first meeting of the HLC will take place on Monday 24. We will
receive updates about that later;
- The next meeting of the EMC is scheduled to March 7, but the date is
still TBC.

These were the main points. A complete and official summary will be
prepared by the Secretariat. Please, always consult the website for
official information.

Best wishes!
Marília






On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Marilia,
> Could you share with us the pre-schedule dates for the next meetings of
> EC? It could be extremely usefull as it would help us to compile on going
> demands in time.
> Best
> Joana
> On 20 Feb 2014 09:16, "Valeria Betancourt" <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Marilia,
>>
>> Extension of deadline for content submissions would be extremely useful
>>
>> Valeria
>>
>> El 20/02/2014, a las 6:47, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> escribió:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
>> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
>> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>>
>> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request
>> an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
>> should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Marilia
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>>
>> Expression of Interest
>>     a. Report about current status
>>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar
>> 15th
>>
>> Content contribution process
>>     a. Document drafting
>>     b. Workflow with other committees
>>
>> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>>     a. List of organizations
>>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>>
>> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>>     a. Updates
>>     b. Remote participation
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> *Marília Maciel*
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>   -------------
>> Valeria Betancourt
>> Directora / Manager
>> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
>> Information Policy Programme
>> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
>> Progressive Communications, APC
>> http://www.apc.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
>>
>>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/aef138f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Thu Feb 20 10:51:15 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:51:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53062473.7040107@acm.org>



On 20-Feb-14 16:31, Marilia Maciel wrote:

All sounds good.  though now the temptation to procrastinate in stead of 
writing this weekend is strong.


> -  Overall, registration for the Conference is still slow (353 people),
> although Business and CS is going in a good pace. I think this is
> expected, as stakeholders have different timings to engage. I would
> suggest that some of us here that are mainly Academics register under
> the Academic sector;

For those who have already registered, can they change their 
affiliation?  Or do they just re-register?

Also, how will a CS person who is also an academic, registering as an 
Academic (or even Technical Community) affect their membership in CS 
groupings?  Can they be sure that they won't then be excluded from CS 
activities for having neglected to register as CS.


thanks for the report and the work.
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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Feb 20 10:52:40 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:52:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAepg_cr8_PUDpVnaaWe3vDdi6LsNCWxu_eXLgkQav3q4g@mail.gmail.com>

any news on the organization of the meeting?
even if we have just one agenda to be followed, should we have different
working groups, each groups with balanced representation, and then somebody
is responsible to unifying the results of all of then and consolidate in a
final meeting proposal/framework/results (whatever it end up being called)?


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> The call has just ended. The official summary will be made public by the
> Secretariat and we will forward it to the list. Below are some unofficial
> remarks based on my own understanding. Adam and Carlos can add. Some of the
> most important points discussed today encompassed:
>
> - Deadline for substantive contributions will be postponed for *March 8*.
> We can't stress enough, however, how important it is to receive
> contributions *as soon as possible, please*. This will tremendously help
> the secretariat with the summary and will help the subsequent work of the
> EMC;
> - Size of contributions: the number of characters will increase,
> especially on the contribution about frameworks. Please refer to the
> website soon for this update;
> - Visa will be free for participants of the meeting, but they need to
> present an invitation letter for that purpose;
> -  Overall, registration for the Conference is still slow (353 people),
> although Business and CS is going in a good pace. I think this is expected,
> as stakeholders have different timings to engage. I would suggest that some
> of us here that are mainly Academics register under the Academic sector;
> - During the next days discussions of selection criteria will start.
> Again, selection will only take place if needed. If you have suggestions of
> criteria, please share;
> - The organization of hubs around the world will be encouraged. Training
> and online assistance will be offered to hub organizers;
> - The first meeting of the HLC will take place on Monday 24. We will
> receive updates about that later;
> - The next meeting of the EMC is scheduled to March 7, but the date is
> still TBC.
>
> These were the main points. A complete and official summary will be
> prepared by the Secretariat. Please, always consult the website for
> official information.
>
> Best wishes!
> Marília
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>
>> Marilia,
>> Could you share with us the pre-schedule dates for the next meetings of
>> EC? It could be extremely usefull as it would help us to compile on going
>> demands in time.
>> Best
>> Joana
>> On 20 Feb 2014 09:16, "Valeria Betancourt" <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Marilia,
>>>
>>> Extension of deadline for content submissions would be extremely useful
>>>
>>> Valeria
>>>
>>> El 20/02/2014, a las 6:47, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
>>> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
>>> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>>>
>>> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request
>>> an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
>>> should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Marilia
>>>
>>> Agenda:
>>>
>>> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>>>
>>> Expression of Interest
>>>     a. Report about current status
>>>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th
>>> ~Mar 15th
>>>
>>> Content contribution process
>>>     a. Document drafting
>>>     b. Workflow with other committees
>>>
>>> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>>>     a. List of organizations
>>>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>>>
>>> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>>>     a. Updates
>>>     b. Remote participation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> *Marília Maciel*
>>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>>
>>> Researcher and Coordinator
>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>>
>>> DiploFoundation associate
>>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>   -------------
>>> Valeria Betancourt
>>> Directora / Manager
>>> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
>>> Information Policy Programme
>>> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
>>> Progressive Communications, APC
>>> http://www.apc.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
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/2f38b6ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Thu Feb 20 10:58:29 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:58:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet
 Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
 Governance"
In-Reply-To: <CAPqXoj+u=iPeF5W9tAo4svt=GydugQBXAHJKy37yXMaPC2LuYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOLD2+abOXBdkOcVTynxw4YmK9pXd6NKgEWPV7VTe2SMk+Z2Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPqXojLJbx1wzJWF1+_3aBjeYzRW+d7jQjTeF8hjbDhbJGhr=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOLD2+YOfPASbPq5eVnqErFC3tSZ5+BqM8d8nsVsWaUjX4_cSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPqXoj+u=iPeF5W9tAo4svt=GydugQBXAHJKy37yXMaPC2LuYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+ZQ_QPtnvTX_r5nwSDUwA+6Ltpdj2DL2+TpZM0NRM_yAg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Lorena,

I'm sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I had some extremely
busy days and also some health problems at home (people with kids will
understand.... ;).

Also, I'm not sure this is the kind of response you were hoping to hear,
but I have been told that for any matter related to TTIP and/or trade
negotiations I should refer you to the spokesperson of Commissioner Karel
De Gucht. See
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/degucht/about/team/#spokesperson .

I'm happy to try and continue the conversation on other elements of our
position on Internet policy and governance, within my constraints as an
official of the European Commission.

Best,

Andrea


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi <
lorena at collaboratory.de> wrote:

> Dear Andrea,
> many thanks for forwarding my question and the update. If you also have a
> personal opinion I am interested in reading it too, since you may possibly
> have some insights I do not have ;)
> Looking also forward to reading the official response of the COM and with
> best regards,
> Lorena
>
> 2014-02-13 9:13 GMT+01:00 Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it>:
>
> Dear Lorena,
>>
>> (Andrea will be just fine)
>>
>> as you have asked the position of the European Commission on TTIP
>> (therefore I assume you are not interested in my personal wishes or
>> opinions) and I do not directly work on it, I took the liberty to relay
>> your question to the colleagues who are more directly involved. I will
>> strive to answer your question as soon as possible.
>>
>> Please feel free to raise any other question, issue or suggestion you
>> might have. I might even be able to answer you directly, without going
>> back-and-forth between colleagues. ;)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi <
>> lorena at collaboratory.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Andrea Glorios,
>>> this sounds really good. Does this imply that relevant and extensive
>>> negotiations like TTIP, which have a digital dimension, would also be more
>>> transparent and participative from the multistakeholder perspective?
>>> Does the Commission have a position on that? Transparency and
>>> inaccessibility have been key criticisms during the latest months and
>>> European NGOs, as well as academia will certainly welcome more openness in
>>> this respect.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí
>>>
>>> 2014-02-12 16:05 GMT+01:00 Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it>:
>>>
>>>> [ Apologies for cross-posting. Please share as you deem appropriate ]
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to let you know that today (12 February 2013) the European
>>>> Commission has adopted its formal policy position on Internet governance,
>>>> via a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
>>>> Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "Internet
>>>> Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet
>>>> governance" (COM(2014) 72/4).
>>>>
>>>> The press release of the adoption is available at
>>>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm .
>>>>
>>>> The text of the Communication is available at
>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453.
>>>>
>>>> The statement by Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European
>>>> Commission and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, is available at
>>>> http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325 .
>>>>
>>>> I hope you find this information useful and the content of the
>>>> Communication interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Andrea
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself.
>>>> Keep it in mind.
>>>> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
>>>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet
>>> Governance (GIG) Ohu
>>>  Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
>>> www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>
>>>  * Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> * Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> *
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
>>> Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep
>> it in mind.
>> Twitter: @andreaglorioso
>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance
> (GIG) Ohu
>  Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
> www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>
>  * Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> * Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> *
> <http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
>



-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/08b1f36b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Feb 20 11:04:37 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:04:37 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <53062473.7040107@acm.org>
References: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <53062473.7040107@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK18V3YU2L-h-xHGFOYLd75CVkoeECP6DOtOWtHBrAQRgA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> All sounds good.  though now the temptation to procrastinate in stead of
> writing this weekend is strong.


Please, don't :) It is really important that submissions arrive as soon as
possible for the reasons explained.

>
>  -  Overall, registration for the Conference is still slow (353 people),
>> although Business and CS is going in a good pace. I think this is
>> expected, as stakeholders have different timings to engage. I would
>> suggest that some of us here that are mainly Academics register under
>> the Academic sector;
>>
>
> For those who have already registered, can they change their affiliation?
>  Or do they just re-register?
>

I will try to find out about that. But it was just a suggestion, do not
worry :)


>
> Also, how will a CS person who is also an academic, registering as an
> Academic (or even Technical Community) affect their membership in CS
> groupings?  Can they be sure that they won't then be excluded from CS
> activities for having neglected to register as CS.
>
> I think you should register where you feel your main identity is. Since
Academics have been set apart from the technical community it makes sense
to me personally, being in a research center, to register as Academic. I
mentioned this possibility because maybe this is the case of a few others
among us. Regarding your other point, it is my understanding that
participants during the meeting would self-organize to work together. Since
the work during the conference has not discussed in detail, I cant offer
you more info, other than my understanding :)


>
> thanks for the report and the work.
> 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
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/b28f523a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Feb 20 11:06:48 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:06:48 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAepg_cr8_PUDpVnaaWe3vDdi6LsNCWxu_eXLgkQav3q4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAepg_cr8_PUDpVnaaWe3vDdi6LsNCWxu_eXLgkQav3q4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1hnWtKV=gSzgFV+wEV7yw9DSHFNqLvY1zw9MwwE2RkfQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> any news on the organization of the meeting?
> even if we have just one agenda to be followed, should we have different
> working groups, each groups with balanced representation, and then somebody
> is responsible to unifying the results of all of then and consolidate in a
> final meeting proposal/framework/results (whatever it end up being called)?
>

Hi Carol, there was no agenda item about the dynamics of the conference
today, so no news about that. If people have suggestions about this, we can
convey to the list/next meeting.
Marília


>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> The call has just ended. The official summary will be made public by the
>> Secretariat and we will forward it to the list. Below are some unofficial
>> remarks based on my own understanding. Adam and Carlos can add. Some of the
>> most important points discussed today encompassed:
>>
>> - Deadline for substantive contributions will be postponed for *March 8*.
>> We can't stress enough, however, how important it is to receive
>> contributions *as soon as possible, please*. This will tremendously help
>> the secretariat with the summary and will help the subsequent work of the
>> EMC;
>> - Size of contributions: the number of characters will increase,
>> especially on the contribution about frameworks. Please refer to the
>> website soon for this update;
>> - Visa will be free for participants of the meeting, but they need to
>> present an invitation letter for that purpose;
>> -  Overall, registration for the Conference is still slow (353 people),
>> although Business and CS is going in a good pace. I think this is expected,
>> as stakeholders have different timings to engage. I would suggest that some
>> of us here that are mainly Academics register under the Academic sector;
>> - During the next days discussions of selection criteria will start.
>> Again, selection will only take place if needed. If you have suggestions of
>> criteria, please share;
>> - The organization of hubs around the world will be encouraged. Training
>> and online assistance will be offered to hub organizers;
>> - The first meeting of the HLC will take place on Monday 24. We will
>> receive updates about that later;
>> - The next meeting of the EMC is scheduled to March 7, but the date is
>> still TBC.
>>
>> These were the main points. A complete and official summary will be
>> prepared by the Secretariat. Please, always consult the website for
>> official information.
>>
>> Best wishes!
>> Marília
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Marilia,
>>> Could you share with us the pre-schedule dates for the next meetings of
>>> EC? It could be extremely usefull as it would help us to compile on going
>>> demands in time.
>>> Best
>>> Joana
>>> On 20 Feb 2014 09:16, "Valeria Betancourt" <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Dear Marilia,
>>>>
>>>> Extension of deadline for content submissions would be extremely useful
>>>>
>>>> Valeria
>>>>
>>>> El 20/02/2014, a las 6:47, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
>>>> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
>>>> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>>>>
>>>> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to
>>>> request an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1).
>>>> This should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Marilia
>>>>
>>>> Agenda:
>>>>
>>>> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>>>>
>>>> Expression of Interest
>>>>     a. Report about current status
>>>>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb
>>>> 28th~Mar 15th
>>>>
>>>> Content contribution process
>>>>     a. Document drafting
>>>>     b. Workflow with other committees
>>>>
>>>> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>>>>     a. List of organizations
>>>>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>>>>
>>>> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>>>>     a. Updates
>>>>     b. Remote participation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> *Marília Maciel*
>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>>>
>>>> Researcher and Coordinator
>>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>>>
>>>> DiploFoundation associate
>>>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   -------------
>>>> Valeria Betancourt
>>>> Directora / Manager
>>>> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
>>>> Information Policy Programme
>>>> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
>>>> Progressive Communications, APC
>>>> http://www.apc.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Marília Maciel*
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140220/eb360ea0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Feb 20 11:40:15 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:40:15 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <230C6685-2FA0-4BB1-8531-4030FECD0BFF@glocom.ac.jp>

Thanks Marilia.

Just to add that more information will come about the visa process.  But it's clear special arrangements will be made.  You will need an invitation letter and that will be sent after completing and expression of interest <http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression> 

Adam


On Feb 21, 2014, at 12:31 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> The call has just ended. The official summary will be made public by the Secretariat and we will forward it to the list. Below are some unofficial remarks based on my own understanding. Adam and Carlos can add. Some of the most important points discussed today encompassed:
> 
> - Deadline for substantive contributions will be postponed for March 8. We can't stress enough, however, how important it is to receive contributions as soon as possible, please. This will tremendously help the secretariat with the summary and will help the subsequent work of the EMC;
> - Size of contributions: the number of characters will increase, especially on the contribution about frameworks. Please refer to the website soon for this update;
> - Visa will be free for participants of the meeting, but they need to present an invitation letter for that purpose;
> -  Overall, registration for the Conference is still slow (353 people), although Business and CS is going in a good pace. I think this is expected, as stakeholders have different timings to engage. I would suggest that some of us here that are mainly Academics register under the Academic sector; 
> - During the next days discussions of selection criteria will start. Again, selection will only take place if needed. If you have suggestions of criteria, please share; 
> - The organization of hubs around the world will be encouraged. Training and online assistance will be offered to hub organizers;
> - The first meeting of the HLC will take place on Monday 24. We will receive updates about that later;
> - The next meeting of the EMC is scheduled to March 7, but the date is still TBC. 
> 
> These were the main points. A complete and official summary will be prepared by the Secretariat. Please, always consult the website for official information.
> 
> Best wishes!
> Marília
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
> Marilia,
> Could you share with us the pre-schedule dates for the next meetings of EC? It could be extremely usefull as it would help us to compile on going demands in time. 
> Best
> Joana
> 
> On 20 Feb 2014 09:16, "Valeria Betancourt" <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:
> Dear Marilia, 
> 
> Extension of deadline for content submissions would be extremely useful
> 
> Valeria
> 
> El 20/02/2014, a las 6:47, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know. 
>> 
>> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Marilia
>> 
>> Agenda:
>> 
>> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>> 
>> Expression of Interest
>>     a. Report about current status
>>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar 15th
>> 
>> Content contribution process
>>     a. Document drafting
>>     b. Workflow with other committees
>> 
>> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>>     a. List of organizations
>>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees   
>> 
>> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>>     a. Updates
>>     b. Remote participation 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Marília Maciel
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>> 
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>> 
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> -------------
> Valeria Betancourt
> Directora / Manager
> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme
> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
> Progressive Communications, APC
> http://www.apc.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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Feb 20 13:11:14 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:41:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <230C6685-2FA0-4BB1-8531-4030FECD0BFF@glocom.ac.jp>
References:     <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
    <230C6685-2FA0-4BB1-8531-4030FECD0BFF@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <d118d7027f14f69fbeedbffc412b3526.squirrel@webmail.hserus.net>

A quick question. Can someone clarify if the reams of additional
information Brazil requires for visa invitations will still be required? 
For example proof of income such as salary statements and tax returns.

Another thing to note is that several countries require yellow fever
vaccination before you enter Brazil.

For example even if Brazil does not insist on a yellow fever vaccine to
enter major Brazilian cities far from the Amazonian rain forest, the
Indian government makes it mandatory to have a yellow fever vaccine
certificate, if you enter India after you travel to anywhere in Brazil. 
If you have a recent Brazilian entry / exit stamp and don't have a yellow
fever vaccine certificate, you will be quarantined.

regards
suresh

On Thu, February 20, 2014 10:10 pm, Adam Peake wrote:
> Thanks Marilia.
>
> Just to add that more information will come about the visa process.
>  But it's clear special arrangements will be made.  You will need
> an invitation letter and that will be sent after completing and
expression of interest
<http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression>






-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Feb 20 17:53:33 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:53:33 +1300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: Remote Participation Third Meeting WGEC
In-Reply-To: <OF2E93EF73.293242B1-ONC1257C7D.003C4A1B-C1257C7D.003C6489@unog.un.org>
References: <OF2E93EF73.293242B1-ONC1257C7D.003C4A1B-C1257C7D.003C6489@unog.un.org>
Message-ID: <5306876D.4050107@apc.org>


Apologies for any cross postings. For those wishing to participate
remotely in this event next week, please note the message from the
secretariat below
Kind regards
Joy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Remote Participation Third Meeting WGEC
Date: 	Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:59:38 +0100
From: 	WGEC <wgec at unctad.org>
To: 	joy at apc.org



Dear Joy,

Those interested to participate remotely in the meeting should send a
email to wgec at unctad.org. Remote participation will be facilitated
through WebEx. We will make a list of remote participants and we will
send them the WebEx link to access the meeting next week.

Best wishes

CSTD Secretariat


----- Forwarded by Claudia Contreras/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO on 12.02.2014 11:58
-----

From:        joy <joy at apc.org>
To:        Claudia Contreras <Claudia.Contreras at unctad.org>
Cc:        Padmashree Gehl Sampath <Padmashree.Gehl.Sampath at unctad.org>,
Mervi Kultamaa <Mervi.Kultamaa at unctad.org>
Date:        12.02.2014 02:46
Subject:        Re: Remote Participation Third Meeting WGEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Claudia - thanks for your reply. However, I will be attending in
person :)
What I would like is information on remote participation for those of my
colleagues who cannot do so
thanks for your help

Joy
On 11/02/2014 9:57 p.m., Claudia Contreras wrote:
Dear Joy,

We receive you registration form.

We will include you in the list of people that will participate
remotely. We will send you the link to the WebEx meeting next week.

Best wishes
Claudia


Claudia Contreras
Science, Technology and ICTs Branch
Division on Technology and Logistics
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
Palais des Nations, E 7058
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Tel: 41-22-917-3313
E-mail: _claudia.contreras at unctad.org_
Website: _http://www.unctad.org/stdev_<_http://www.unctad.org/stdev_>






From:        joy _<joy at apc.org>_ <mailto:joy at apc.org>
To:        WGEC _<wgec at unctad.org>_ <mailto:wgec at unctad.org>
Cc:        Valeria Betancourt _<valeriab at apc.org>_ <mailto:valeriab at apc.org>
Date:        11.02.2014 02:15
Subject:        Fwd: Fwd: Reminder to confirm participation third
meeting WGEC (24-28 February 2014)
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Secretariat - please find attached my registration form for you -
please let me know if you need any more information.
Can you also please share details of how to participate remotely by WebEx
thank you
Kind regards

Joy Liddicoat


-------- Original Message --------
*Subject: *
	Fwd: Reminder to confirm participation third meeting WGEC (24-28
February 2014)
*Date: *
	Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:15:25 +1300
*From: *
	joy _<joy at apc.org>_ <mailto:joy at apc.org>
*Reply-To: *
	_joy at apc.org_ <mailto:joy at apc.org>
*Organisation: *
	APC
*To: *
	Mongi Hamdi _<Mongi.Hamdi at unctad.org>_ <mailto:Mongi.Hamdi at unctad.org>,
'Padmashree Gehl Sampath' _<Padmashree.Gehl.Sampath at unctad.org>_
<mailto:Padmashree.Gehl.Sampath at unctad.org>
*CC: *
	Peter. Major _<peter.major at ties.itu.int>_
<mailto:peter.major at ties.itu.int>, Valeria Betancourt
_<valeriab at apc.org>_ <mailto:valeriab at apc.org>






Dear colleagues,
Forwarding confirmation of my attendance to you.
Please let me know if you need any more information.
Kind regards

Joy Liddicoat


-------- Original Message --------
*Subject: *
	Reminder to confirm participation third meeting WGEC (24-28 February 2014)
*Date: *
	Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:54:45 +0100
*From: *
	WGEC _<wgec at UNCTAD.ORG>_ <mailto:wgec at UNCTAD.ORG>
*Reply-To: *
	UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation _<WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG>_
<mailto:WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG>
*To: *
	_WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG_ <mailto:WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG>






Dear WGEC Members,

This is a kind reminder to confirm your participation in the third
meeting of the WGEC. This meeting will be held on 24-28 February 2014 in
Geneva, Switzerland.

In case you are attending the meeting, please find attached the
registration form of this event. Please fill it in and send it back to
us at your earliest convenience.

The meeting will take place in room XXIV at the Palais des Nations (1st
Floor, E-Building).

Remote participation will be available through WebEx for those unable to
attend in person. Please send an email to _wgec at unctad.org_
<mailto:wgec at unctad.org>if you would like to receive information about
this mechanism of participation.



More information of the meeting is available at
_http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=425_

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need additional information.


Best wishes,

WGEC Secretariat




[attachment "3rd WGEC Registration form 24-28 February 2014_JJL.doc"
deleted by Claudia Contreras/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO] [attachment "joy.vcf"
deleted by Claudia Contreras/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO]



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/80be9eae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/80be9eae/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/80be9eae/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 20 17:55:43 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:55:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <d118d7027f14f69fbeedbffc412b3526.squirrel@webmail.hserus.net>
References: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>    <230C6685-2FA0-4BB1-8531-4030FECD0BFF@glocom.ac.jp> <d118d7027f14f69fbeedbffc412b3526.squirrel@webmail.hserus.net>
Message-ID: <530687EF.2060508@acm.org>

Hi,

I recommend travelers always have their vaccinations up to date and 
their yellow card with them wherever they go, you never know when/where 
there will be a scare and it ill become required. not to mention that 
vaccination are an easy sort of life insurance to carry.

avri

On 20-Feb-14 19:11, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> A quick question. Can someone clarify if the reams of additional
> information Brazil requires for visa invitations will still be required?
> For example proof of income such as salary statements and tax returns.
>
> Another thing to note is that several countries require yellow fever> vaccination before you enter Brazil.
>
> For example even if Brazil does not insist on a yellow fever vaccine to
> enter major Brazilian cities far from the Amazonian rain forest, the
> Indian government makes it mandatory to have a yellow fever vaccine
> certificate, if you enter India after you travel to anywhere in Brazil.
> If you have a recent Brazilian entry / exit stamp and don't have a yellow
> fever vaccine certificate, you will be quarantined.
>
> regards
> suresh
>
> On Thu, February 20, 2014 10:10 pm, Adam Peake wrote:
>> Thanks Marilia.
>>
>> Just to add that more information will come about the visa process.
>>   But it's clear special arrangements will be made.  You will need
>> an invitation letter and that will be sent after completing and
> expression of interest
> <http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Fri Feb 21 05:58:17 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:58:17 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [aisi-ig-l] The 2014 IGF Themes
In-Reply-To: <t8w1v0zbaisi-ig-l@dgroups.org>
References: <t8w1v0zbaisi-ig-l@dgroups.org>
Message-ID: <CADFgh10ZKncV63xsaPO2MSiRBynNCb2MbDQEZkRk8UDW_8+23w@mail.gmail.com>

Below and attached are the propsed IGF Themes for 2014 as adopted by the
IGF/MAG meeting in Geneva yesterday:



1.      Local policies enabling Internet Access

2.      Content Creation, Dissemination and Use

3.      Internet as an engine for growth and development

4.      IGF and the Future of Internet ecosystem

5.      Enhancing Digital Trust

6.      Internet and Human Rights

7.      Critical Internet Resources

8.      Emerging Issues
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/5dd9ac3a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr  Fri Feb 21 09:46:27 2014
From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:46:27 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [aisi-ig-l] The 2014 IGF Themes
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10ZKncV63xsaPO2MSiRBynNCb2MbDQEZkRk8UDW_8+23w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t8w1v0zbaisi-ig-l@dgroups.org> <CADFgh10ZKncV63xsaPO2MSiRBynNCb2MbDQEZkRk8UDW_8+23w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1392993987.14068.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

That is a very good news. 

Thank you Makane and Nnenna for updating us. 

Regards


 
NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY


ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT
Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président




Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général




Skype : jpnkurunziz


Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza
Tel : +257 79 981459



Le Vendredi 21 février 2014 12h59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> a écrit :
 

Below and attached are the propsed IGF Themes for 2014 as adopted by the IGF/MAG meeting in Geneva yesterday:



1.      Local policies enabling Internet Access

2.      Content Creation, Dissemination and Use

3.      Internet as an engine for growth and development

4.      IGF and the Future of Internet ecosystem

5.      Enhancing Digital Trust

6.      Internet and Human Rights

7.      Critical Internet Resources

8.      Emerging Issues




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/0ef489b1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Feb 21 05:17:29 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:47:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com> <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:39 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Yes, it would be very important. We will convey this point. We only 
> have a trade-off we need to try to minimize: the more time we give to 
> inputs, the less time EMC will have to work on an initial draft 
> document. In the 2 days of the meeting, we will only have about 12 
> hours of actual work in sessions, so most of the people though it 
> would be useful to have an initial input document, which, of course, 
> participants are completely free to change.

Not to make your life difficult Marilia, bit this bit intrigues me.... 
Have you guys even begun to think of what it means to say "participants 
are completely free to change" (the drafts etc).

parminder



> Lets see what can be done in terms of schedule. Will get back about 
> that after the call.
>
> Marilia
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:55 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Marilia/ Adam
>
>     Extension of deadline is very much needed. especially since the
>     WGEC will finish its work on the 28th.. Not only a lot of us who
>     will be busy with WGEC need some time after that to submit inputs,
>     what happens or does not happen at the final WGEC meeting may have
>     some bearing on the inputs. So best to extend the deadline for
>     10-15 days.. Best wishes. parminder
>
>
>     On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:17 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
>>     Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
>>     suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>>
>>     Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an
>>     extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
>>     should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>     Marilia
>>
>>     Agenda:
>>
>>     Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>>
>>     Expression of Interest
>>          a. Report about current status
>>          b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar
>>     15th
>>
>>     Content contribution process
>>          a. Document drafting
>>          b. Workflow with other committees
>>
>>     Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>>          a. List of organizations
>>          b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>>
>>     Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>>          a. Updates
>>          b. Remote participation
>>
>>
>>
>>     -
>>     *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 <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>>
>>     ----------------------------------------
>>     This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please emailmanasa at itforchange.net  <mailto:manasa at itforchange.net>.
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *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 <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/ffdeafdd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Feb 21 10:10:52 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:10:52 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com>
 <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK2=Dytx8Va4k-CqU7Ro65xqAx-W1mQcSjKgyOaTcDvJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial input to
the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the discussions in the
meeting are going to take place. This was not discussed by the EMC and it
is hard to predict, I think.
Marilia


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:39 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
>  Dear Parminder,
>
> Yes, it would be very important. We will convey this point. We only have a
> trade-off we need to try to minimize: the more time we give to inputs, the
> less time EMC will have to work on an initial draft document. In the 2 days
> of the meeting, we will only have about 12 hours of actual work in
> sessions, so most of the people though it would be useful to have an
> initial input document, which, of course, participants are completely free
> to change.
>
>
> Not to make your life difficult Marilia, bit this bit intrigues me....
> Have you guys even begun to think of what it means to say "participants are
> completely free to change" (the drafts etc).
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>  Lets see what can be done in terms of schedule. Will get back about that
> after the call.
>
>  Marilia
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:55 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  Marilia/ Adam
>>
>> Extension of deadline is very much needed. especially since the WGEC will
>> finish its work on the 28th.. Not only a lot of us who will be busy with
>> WGEC need some time after that to submit inputs, what happens or does not
>> happen at the final WGEC meeting may have some bearing on the inputs. So
>> best to extend the deadline for 10-15 days.. Best wishes. parminder
>>
>>
>>   On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:17 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net
>> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any
>> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know.
>>
>> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an
>> extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This
>> should be discussed and we will keep you informed.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Marilia
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th)
>>
>> Expression of Interest
>>     a. Report about current status
>>     b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar
>> 15th
>>
>> Content contribution process
>>     a. Document drafting
>>     b. Workflow with other committees
>>
>> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations
>>     a. List of organizations
>>     b. Amount of seats for special invitees
>>
>> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser)
>>     a. Updates
>>     b. Remote participation
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> *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 associatewww.diplomacy.edu
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>  *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
>  Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
>  DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/b4b5732a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb 21 11:01:45 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:01:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK2=Dytx8Va4k-CqU7Ro65xqAx-W1mQcSjKgyOaTcDvJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net>
	<CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com>
	<530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net>
	<CACpVkK2=Dytx8Va4k-CqU7Ro65xqAx-W1mQcSjKgyOaTcDvJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill>

Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial
> input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the
> discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not
> discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think.

Hi Marilia

At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as
initial input into the process that created the output document. This
initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the
very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to
reach consensus in favor of proposed changes.

If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite
plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the
“initial input”.

I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not
with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The
compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a
compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw
upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document.

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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Fri Feb 21 12:21:57 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:21:57 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com> <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK2=Dytx8Va4k-CqU7Ro65xqAx-W1mQcSjKgyOaTcDvJ_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill>
Message-ID: <E58A269D-D5C5-4C06-A3EF-26C172BE754E@mail.utoronto.ca>

Hello all,
Attached is the agenda for the first meeting of the HLMC, which will be held Monday the 24th.  I have no other information about the meeting, but will be participating remotely, along with several others.  This is a short meeting, but I will report back with a brief summary, following Marilia’s excellent model. 
Any advice/comments you would like to pass along to me would be gratefully received. 
Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin
NCUC

High Level Multistakeholder Committee Meeting
Date: February 24th, 2014, Barcelona
Time: 16:30~18:00 UTC  /  17:30~19:00 CET

Agenda:

1. Welcome and introduction of participants (Minister Paulo Bernardo) (5 min)
2. Introduction of NETmundial (Minister Paulo Bernardo) (5 min)
3. Briefing of the NETmundial structure and workflow (Secretary Virgilio Almeida) (10 min)
    a. Background
    b. Objectives and expected outcomes
    c. Committees and interactions among them
    d. Content contribution process
    e. Synthesis paper and document drafting
    f.  Important dates
    g. HLMC roles and Agenda
4. Open Floor & Discussion  (40 min)
5. Summary and Closing Remarks (10 min)

On Feb 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial
>> input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the
>> discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not
>> discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think.
> 
> Hi Marilia
> 
> At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as
> initial input into the process that created the output document. This
> initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the
> very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to
> reach consensus in favor of proposed changes.
> 
> If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite
> plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the
> “initial input”.
> 
> I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not
> with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The
> compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a
> compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw
> upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Fri Feb 21 12:27:05 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:27:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com>
 <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK2=Dytx8Va4k-CqU7Ro65xqAx-W1mQcSjKgyOaTcDvJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0EFNqogCYK605OJnsK6Fo9eidzPhM_pEBoU3UT6v8ysQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Norbert, thanks for this comment. The information that EMC members
received was that the chair of the meeting, Mr. Virgilio, expected to have
an initial input to the Meeting. His understanding was that it would be a
task for the EMC to produce this initial input based on the contributions
received.

According to my understanding, meeting participants would be free to do
whatever they want with that document. It would be only an initial input.
If it is good, it can be used as the basis for further work. If it is not,
it can be changed. If it is awful (hope not), it can be discarded. My own
opinion is that with approximately 12 hours of work during the two days and
no possibility to divide participants in two tracks due to limitations of
the venue it is important to have at least a starting point. Of course, I
will convey different opinions.

Best
Marília


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial
> > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the
> > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not
> > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think.
>
> Hi Marilia
>
> At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as
> initial input into the process that created the output document. This
> initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the
> very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to
> reach consensus in favor of proposed changes.
>
> If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite
> plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the
> "initial input".
>
> I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not
> with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The
> compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a
> compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw
> upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>



-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/736fa134/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Feb 21 12:57:28 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 02:57:28 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC
 meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK0EFNqogCYK605OJnsK6Fo9eidzPhM_pEBoU3UT6v8ysQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com> <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK2=Dytx8Va4k-CqU7Ro65xqAx-W1mQcSjKgyOaTcDvJ_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> <CACpVkK0EFNqogCYK605OJnsK6Fo9eidzPhM_pEBoU3UT6v8ysQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FAC6C22C-86C0-48C2-8465-C6BED9D148C5@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Marilia,

On Feb 22, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:

> Hi Norbert, thanks for this comment. The information that EMC members received was that the chair of the meeting, Mr. Virgilio, expected to have an initial input to the Meeting. His understanding was that it would be a task for the EMC to produce this initial input based on the contributions received.
> 
> According to my understanding, meeting participants would be free to do whatever they want with that document. It would be only an initial input. If it is good, it can be used as the basis for further work. If it is not, it can be changed. If it is awful (hope not), it can be discarded. My own opinion is that with approximately 12 hours of work during the two days and no possibility to divide participants in two tracks due to limitations of the venue it is important to have at least a starting point.


This is my understanding as well.  Although the official agenda time is 8.5 hours of plenary: 4 on the roadmap topic and 4.5 on principles (or is it the other way round?)  Then we'll have some evening sessions perhaps.

Whether it is a single document or a package I don't think is all that clear.  I can imagine different outcomes on the two issues. But we still need to work on modalities.  

It might be helpful is we had a discussion about how we will get from the first documents, that is the synthesis paper and contributions (available around March 15th I think), to documents we can take into the meeting on April 23rd. What kind of output would we like?  What's our goal?  

Given the known limitations, what goal(s) can we aim for? 


> Of course, I will convey different opinions. 
> 


I actually disagree with what I understand Norbert is suggesting.  Starting with a blank slate would create a process favoring those with the financial resources to attend the meeting, or a best the ability to stay online for 2 days trusting remote access (impossible for anyone without robust broadband access and power - and then there's simple things like time zone.)  Unless I am missing something.

Best,

Adam



> Best
> Marília
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial
> > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the
> > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not
> > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think.
> 
> Hi Marilia
> 
> At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as
> initial input into the process that created the output document. This
> initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the
> very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to
> reach consensus in favor of proposed changes.
> 
> If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite
> plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the
> “initial input”.
> 
> I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not
> with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The
> compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a
> compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw
> upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 21 13:15:35 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:15:35 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC
 meeting
In-Reply-To: <FAC6C22C-86C0-48C2-8465-C6BED9D148C5@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com>
 <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <CACpVkK2=Dytx8Va4k-CqU7Ro65xqAx-W1mQcSjKgyOaTcDvJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> <CACpVkK0EFNqogCYK605OJnsK6Fo9eidzPhM_pEBoU3UT6v8ysQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <FAC6C22C-86C0-48C2-8465-C6BED9D148C5@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3+42WYiUfawEEOaTe+Y6d7tJr1VQ+-6Cc_1Qz22SGabQ@mail.gmail.com>

>
>
> It might be helpful is we had a discussion about how we will get from the
> first documents, that is the synthesis paper and contributions (available
> around March 15th I think), to documents we can take into the meeting on
> April 23rd. What kind of output would we like?  What's our goal?
>

Exactly. We need to discuss our goals and build strategy to achieve them.
In addition, we can certainly present inputs about how to build the draft
input document, how to put it online under public consultation before the
Meeting and how to better take advantage of our time during the conference.
We should push and offer suggestions for the implementation of join letter
on the deliberative processes for the meeting.
Marília


>
>
> > Best
> > Marília
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial
> > > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the
> > > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not
> > > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think.
> >
> > Hi Marilia
> >
> > At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as
> > initial input into the process that created the output document. This
> > initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the
> > very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to
> > reach consensus in favor of proposed changes.
> >
> > If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite
> > plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the
> > "initial input".
> >
> > I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not
> > with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The
> > compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a
> > compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw
> > upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Marília Maciel
> > Pesquisadora Gestora
> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> >
> > Researcher and Coordinator
> > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> >
> > DiploFoundation associate
> > www.diplomacy.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140221/5a168fe7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From rguerra at privaterra.org  Fri Feb 21 17:15:22 2014
From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:15:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] Report that - United Nations Internet Governance Forum
 (website) Hacked, 3,215 Accounts Leaked
Message-ID: <5A32BA8B-D451-48CF-B323-37D30FC7E86E@privaterra.org>

Just came across news about this on a non-governance list that I’m on. 

Would be keen to get an official comment from the IGF secretariat….

In the meantime, i suggest as a minimum people change their passwords on the IGF system…


regards

Robert




United Nations Internet Governance Forum Hacked, 3,215 Accounts Leaked
http://www.cyberwarnews.info/2014/02/20/united-nations-internet-governance-forum-hacked-3215-accounts-leaked/

Today hacker collective @deletesec announced a breach and leak of data on a United nations based website.

The site is the Internet Governance Forum and it appears to be registered to Chengetai Masango and is also the Programme and Technology Manager at United Nations Secretariat for the Internet Governance Forum.

 Its purpose is to support the United Nations Secretary-General in carrying out the mandate from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) with regard to convening a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue – the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The site provides an interactive, collaborative space where all stakeholders can air their views and exchange ideas.

The breach was announced on twitter and posted to defuse.ca. The leak contains 3,215 users real names, user names, email addresses and encrypted passwords with some of the emails belonging to government orgs and alike. Total of 3,200 accounts are non duplicate and a total of 537 different email providers are affected.


--
R. Guerra
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom 
Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Fri Feb 21 17:37:25 2014
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:37:25 -0500
Subject: [governance] Report that - United Nations Internet Governance
 Forum (website) Hacked, 3,215 Accounts Leaked
In-Reply-To: <5A32BA8B-D451-48CF-B323-37D30FC7E86E@privaterra.org>
References: <5A32BA8B-D451-48CF-B323-37D30FC7E86E@privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <89D75427-3EED-4B34-A806-E9F87401864D@gmail.com>

I just tried to log in using the IGF discussion space login window, and the system did not recognize my user-password combination.  Has anyone else had this experience, or success?

George




On Feb 21, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:

> Just came across news about this on a non-governance list that I’m on. 
> 
> Would be keen to get an official comment from the IGF secretariat….
> 
> In the meantime, i suggest as a minimum people change their passwords on the IGF system…
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Internet Governance Forum Hacked, 3,215 Accounts Leaked
> http://www.cyberwarnews.info/2014/02/20/united-nations-internet-governance-forum-hacked-3215-accounts-leaked/
> 
> Today hacker collective @deletesec announced a breach and leak of data on a United nations based website.
> 
> The site is the Internet Governance Forum and it appears to be registered to Chengetai Masango and is also the Programme and Technology Manager at United Nations Secretariat for the Internet Governance Forum.
> 
> Its purpose is to support the United Nations Secretary-General in carrying out the mandate from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) with regard to convening a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue – the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The site provides an interactive, collaborative space where all stakeholders can air their views and exchange ideas.
> 
> The breach was announced on twitter and posted to defuse.ca. The leak contains 3,215 users real names, user names, email addresses and encrypted passwords with some of the emails belonging to government orgs and alike. Total of 3,200 accounts are non duplicate and a total of 537 different email providers are affected.
> 
> 
> --
> R. Guerra
> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom 
> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb 21 18:35:11 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 00:35:11 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC
 meeting
In-Reply-To: <FAC6C22C-86C0-48C2-8465-C6BED9D148C5@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net>
	<CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com>
	<530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net>
	<CACpVkK2=Dytx8Va4k-CqU7Ro65xqAx-W1mQcSjKgyOaTcDvJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140221170145.529b1d03@quill>
	<CACpVkK0EFNqogCYK605OJnsK6Fo9eidzPhM_pEBoU3UT6v8ysQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<FAC6C22C-86C0-48C2-8465-C6BED9D148C5@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <20140222003511.44d92caa@quill>

Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> I actually disagree with what I understand Norbert is suggesting.
> Starting with a blank slate would create a process favoring those
> with the financial resources to attend the meeting, or a best the
> ability to stay online for 2 days trusting remote access (impossible
> for anyone without robust broadband access and power - and then
> there's simple things like time zone.)  Unless I am missing something.

What is wrong with having a process for creating the output document of
a meeting that “favors” the participants of the meeting? (Here I'm
including remote participants among the participants.)

Especially in view of all the controversies that we've witnessed around
concerns about the legitimacy of the selection processes for the various
committees including the EMC, I'd consider the legitimacy of the output
document to be significantly reduced if it has key elements which do
not reflect a consensus of the participants of the meeting, but which
are there because the EMC put those textual elements into the “initial
input” and then there was no consensus to change them. 

If the number of hours which are available at the meeting for working
on the output document are not sufficient for creating the desired
output document, and if this number of hours cannot be increased, then
either there must be a truly bottom-up consensus-based preparatory
process (in which all participants of the meeting can fully participate)
to create the initial draft, or the scope of the intended output
document must be reduced to the point where it becomes realistic for
the participants of the meeting, as a group, to produce the output
document during the meeting itself.

Greetings,
Norbert


> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> > wrote: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial
> > > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the
> > > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not
> > > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think.
> > 
> > Hi Marilia
> > 
> > At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO
> > as initial input into the process that created the output document.
> > This initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible,
> > during the very limited and really quite insufficient amount of
> > time available, to reach consensus in favor of proposed changes.
> > 
> > If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite
> > plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the
> > “initial input”.
> > 
> > I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not
> > with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate.
> > The compilation of contributions is still important of course, but
> > as a compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can
> > draw upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working
> > document.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Marília Maciel
> > Pesquisadora Gestora
> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> > 
> > Researcher and Coordinator
> > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> > 
> > DiploFoundation associate
> > www.diplomacy.edu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Malcolm.id.au  Fri Feb 21 21:11:05 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 10:11:05 +0800
Subject: [governance] Report that - United Nations Internet Governance
 Forum (website) Hacked, 3,215 Accounts Leaked
In-Reply-To: <89D75427-3EED-4B34-A806-E9F87401864D@gmail.com>
References: <5A32BA8B-D451-48CF-B323-37D30FC7E86E@privaterra.org> <89D75427-3EED-4B34-A806-E9F87401864D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <18374F2B-9F97-4733-8238-1B68780A019D@Malcolm.id.au>

On 22 Feb 2014, at 6:37 am, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just tried to log in using the IGF discussion space login window, and the system did not recognize my user-password combination.  Has anyone else had this experience, or success?

If it's just the discussion space that's been hacked, then amongst the 3,215 leaked accounts are the accounts for the users !Pharmacy!, -VIAGRA- and ADULT_WEBSITE.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140222/34ad1546/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 22 01:07:37 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:37:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] india plans keeping data in-country as well
Message-ID: <53083EA9.6060604@itforchange.net>

See 
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/national-security-council-proposes-3pronged-plan-to-protect-internet-users/article5685794.ece

Not very different from what Merkel suggested for the EU...

Such moves would keep taking force, unless we get better international 
agreements and arrangements. parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140222/08d21db4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Feb 22 02:51:21 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:51:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] india plans keeping data in-country as well
Message-ID: <E1WH7Mo-0000dn-Bo@samwise.hserus.net>

Yes but nothing that  fundamentally alters the structure of the Internet. Keeping local traffic local and hosting certain kinds of mostly pii data in country have long been recognized as best practice. A far cry from any sort of balkanization. 

--srs (htc one x)

----- Reply message -----
From: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: [governance] india plans keeping data in-country as well
Date: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 6:07 AM

See 
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/national-security-council-proposes-3pronged-plan-to-protect-internet-users/article5685794.ece

Not very different from what Merkel suggested for the EU...

Such moves would keep taking force, unless we get better international 
agreements and arrangements. parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140222/4b985fba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sat Feb 22 04:41:47 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 05:41:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <530687EF.2060508@acm.org>
References: <CACpVkK2rj5YiRem-pPyYUJA9ToZQCm6BJqCiLFXmsuX-mmGBRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <230C6685-2FA0-4BB1-8531-4030FECD0BFF@glocom.ac.jp> <d118d7027f14f69fbeedbffc412b3526.squirrel@webmail.hserus.net>
 <530687EF.2060508@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4ywMT6SA231_s3XKLZ-2W_K-QOqTNRfZ74iXe=WOwwMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,
Vaccination certificates can also be used in "tit for tat" diplomacy (your
country says my country has X disease, so my country says your country has
it too) as I discovered, nearly to my cost, last year on the way home from
a meeting by a rather circuitous route.
At least a yellow fever vaccination lasts for 10 years :-)
Deirdre


On 20 February 2014 18:55, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I recommend travelers always have their vaccinations up to date and their
> yellow card with them wherever they go, you never know when/where there
> will be a scare and it ill become required. not to mention that vaccination
> are an easy sort of life insurance to carry.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 20-Feb-14 19:11, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>  A quick question. Can someone clarify if the reams of additional
>> information Brazil requires for visa invitations will still be required?
>> For example proof of income such as salary statements and tax returns.
>>
>> Another thing to note is that several countries require yellow fever>
>> vaccination before you enter Brazil.
>>
>> For example even if Brazil does not insist on a yellow fever vaccine to
>> enter major Brazilian cities far from the Amazonian rain forest, the
>> Indian government makes it mandatory to have a yellow fever vaccine
>> certificate, if you enter India after you travel to anywhere in Brazil.
>> If you have a recent Brazilian entry / exit stamp and don't have a yellow
>> fever vaccine certificate, you will be quarantined.
>>
>> regards
>> suresh
>>
>> On Thu, February 20, 2014 10:10 pm, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Marilia.
>>>
>>> Just to add that more information will come about the visa process.
>>>   But it's clear special arrangements will be made.  You will need
>>> an invitation letter and that will be sent after completing and
>>>
>> expression of interest
>> <http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140222/48b8a23c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Feb 22 06:00:03 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 20:00:03 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN's Role in the Internet
 Governance Eco-system - Strategic Panel's Report relased
References: <EB610610-CD28-425E-8847-960DD8690CEC@afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <4157231B-141A-4185-95C7-3915F923209A@glocom.ac.jp>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net>
> Date: February 22, 2014 7:19:47 PM GMT+09:00
> To: AfrICANN list <africann at afrinic.net>
> Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Eco-system - Strategic Panel's Report relased
> Reply-To: AfrICANN list <africann at afrinic.net>
> 
> Dear all, 
> 
> This should be of interest to this. The ICANN's Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Eco-system has just released its report. 
> 
> Basically, The Panel examined the nature of the Internet Ecosystem and structures that could be pursued to document the roles, responsibilities and commitments the actors in this system have made or could make to one another and to the community. The key deliverables of the report were to: 
> 
> • Facilitate review of the assumptions, linkages and frameworks that underlie ecosystem player responsibilities in the current Internet ecosystem, including ICANN's;
> 
> • Seek insights on ways to maintain and enhance stewardship of all actors, including ICANN, in an evolving ecosystem; and
> 
> • Cultivate thought leadership on ways in which ICANN and others can serve a complex set of Internet constituencies.
> 
> The video interview with the Panel's Chair, Vint Cerf, can be found here: 
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-governance-ecosystem-11feb14-en.htm
> 
> The report itself can be found here:  
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-20feb14-en.pdf
> 
> Information on the panel members, webinars and consultations can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem
> 
> The report is an important contribution to discussions, including informing ICANN's strategic planning process. Please do provide thoughts and input to the report. Comments can be shared here or directly to ioepanel at icann.org.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - a.
> _______________________________________________
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From glaser at cgi.br  Sat Feb 22 06:56:20 2014
From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 08:56:20 -0300
Subject: [governance] Report of the Panel on the Internet Ecosystem
Message-ID: <53089064.8020906@cgi.br>


FYI

Hartmut Glaaer
====================================================

All,

Perhaps of interest to the discussions on Internet governance overall is 
the recently released report of ICANN's Strategy Panel on
ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Eco-system. The Panel examined 
the nature of the Internet Ecosystem and structures that
could be pursued to document the roles, responsibilities and commitments 
the actors in this system have made or could make to
one another and to the community. The key deliverables of the report 
were to:

- Facilitate review of the assumptions, linkages and frameworks that 
underlie ecosystem player responsibilities in the current
             Internet ecosystem, including ICANN's;

- Seek insights on ways to maintain and enhance stewardship of all 
actors, including ICANN, in an evolving ecosystem; and

- Cultivate thought leadership on ways in which ICANN and others can 
serve a complex set of Internet constituencies.

The video interview with the Panel's Chair, Vint Cerf, can be found here:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-governance-ecosystem-11feb14-en.htm

The report itself can be found here:

http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-20feb14-en.pdf

Information on the panel members, webinars and consultations can be 
found at:

http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem

The report is an important contribution to discussions, including 
informing ICANN's strategic planning process. Please do provide
thoughts and input to the report.

Apologies if this message ends up on duplicate lists!!

vint cerf


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140222/2097de11/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mazzone at ebu.ch  Sat Feb 22 07:47:43 2014
From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 12:47:43 +0000
Subject: [governance] Report of the Panel on the Internet Ecosystem
In-Reply-To: <53089064.8020906@cgi.br>
References: <53089064.8020906@cgi.br>
Message-ID: <20140222124743.5013646.49649.28625@ebu.ch>

Grazie mille Hartmut... I hoped to see you at the IGF this week but you prefer not to leave Brazil, that became the new center ‎of the world for Internet.
Or it is because of the FIFA championship that you don't move anymore ?

Giacomo Mazzone
From: Hartmut Richard Glaser
Sent: samedi, 22 février 2014 12:57
To: discuss at 1net.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; igf_members; Governance
Reply To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] Report of the Panel on the Internet Ecosystem



FYI

Hartmut Glaaer
====================================================

All,

Perhaps of interest to the discussions on Internet governance overall is the recently released report of ICANN's Strategy Panel on
ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Eco-system. The Panel examined the nature of the Internet Ecosystem and structures that
could be pursued to document the roles, responsibilities and commitments the actors in this system have made or could make to
one another and to the community. The key deliverables of the report were to:

- Facilitate review of the assumptions, linkages and frameworks that underlie ecosystem player responsibilities in the current
            Internet ecosystem, including ICANN's;

- Seek insights on ways to maintain and enhance stewardship of all actors, including ICANN, in an evolving ecosystem; and

- Cultivate thought leadership on ways in which ICANN and others can serve a complex set of Internet constituencies.

The video interview with the Panel's Chair, Vint Cerf, can be found here:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-governance-ecosystem-11feb14-en.htm

The report itself can be found here:

http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-20feb14-en.pdf

Information on the panel members, webinars and consultations can be found at:

http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem

The report is an important contribution to discussions, including informing ICANN's strategic planning process. Please do provide
thoughts and input to the report.

Apologies if this message ends up on duplicate lists!!

vint cerf


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From glaser at cgi.br  Sat Feb 22 08:09:53 2014
From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 10:09:53 -0300
Subject: [governance] Report of the Panel on the Internet Ecosystem
In-Reply-To: <20140222124743.5013646.49649.28625@ebu.ch>
References: <53089064.8020906@cgi.br> <20140222124743.5013646.49649.28625@ebu.ch>
Message-ID: <5308A1A1.8010309@cgi.br>


Dear Giacomo,

I am fulltime dedicated to organize the logistic and the infrastructure 
of NETmundial to be held next April in Brazil.
I expect to welcome you in São Paulo.

best regards

Hartmut

=====================================
On 22/02/14 09:47, Mazzone, Giacomo wrote:
> Grazie mille Hartmut... I hoped to see you at the IGF this week but you prefer not to leave Brazil, that became the new center ‎of the world for Internet.
> Or it is because of the FIFA championship that you don't move anymore ?
>
> Giacomo Mazzone
> From: Hartmut Richard Glaser
> Sent: samedi, 22 février 2014 12:57
> To: discuss at 1net.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; igf_members; Governance
> Reply To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Report of the Panel on the Internet Ecosystem
>
>
>
> FYI
>
> Hartmut Glaaer
> ====================================================
>
> All,
>
> Perhaps of interest to the discussions on Internet governance overall is the recently released report of ICANN's Strategy Panel on
> ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Eco-system. The Panel examined the nature of the Internet Ecosystem and structures that
> could be pursued to document the roles, responsibilities and commitments the actors in this system have made or could make to
> one another and to the community. The key deliverables of the report were to:
>
> - Facilitate review of the assumptions, linkages and frameworks that underlie ecosystem player responsibilities in the current
>              Internet ecosystem, including ICANN's;
>
> - Seek insights on ways to maintain and enhance stewardship of all actors, including ICANN, in an evolving ecosystem; and
>
> - Cultivate thought leadership on ways in which ICANN and others can serve a complex set of Internet constituencies.
>
> The video interview with the Panel's Chair, Vint Cerf, can be found here:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-governance-ecosystem-11feb14-en.htm
>
> The report itself can be found here:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-20feb14-en.pdf
>
> Information on the panel members, webinars and consultations can be found at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem
>
> The report is an important contribution to discussions, including informing ICANN's strategic planning process. Please do provide
> thoughts and input to the report.
>
> Apologies if this message ends up on duplicate lists!!
>
> vint cerf
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> **************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
> **************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140222/3a9c0a69/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pouzin at well.com  Sat Feb 22 12:45:37 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:45:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I received an invitation to the 1st HLC meeting in Barcelona on 24th Feb. I
shall be there.

Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140222/a642b807/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140222/a642b807/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From rishab.bailey at gmail.com  Sat Feb 22 13:49:21 2014
From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 00:19:21 +0530
Subject: [governance] Open Letter by Indian civil society organizations to
 the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil, April, 2014
Message-ID: <CANf7=M3ToULno_GMXOMJe4K3q=rG_oPnoUwmqta4sKDh99ONaA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Friends,

Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to
send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on
the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year,
regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting.

This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society
organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance
space.

(the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows:
1. Centre for Communication Governance
2. Centre for Internet and Society
3. Digital Empowerment Foundation
4. Free Software Movement of India
5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy
6. Internet Democracy Project
7. IT for Change
8. Open Knowledge Community
9. Society for Knowledge Commons
10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India)

We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014)
(together with any further endorsements received).

Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do
let me know at the earliest possible.

Thanks and regards,
Rishab Bailey
for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140223/52403c98/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NetMundial - Appointment of CS co-chair.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 96371 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140223/52403c98/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 22 15:01:04 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 01:31:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
Message-ID: <E1WHIkz-0007Ka-Ld@samwise.hserus.net>

In the Brazilian case yellow fever is indeed endemic and people may be exposed to it without it showing in passport entry and exit stamps 

So.. Not sure about your case but this is strongly recommended 

--srs (htc one x)

----- Reply message -----
From: "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
To: "Internet Governance" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org>
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting
Date: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 3:11 PM

Hello,
Vaccination certificates can also be used in "tit for tat" diplomacy (your
country says my country has X disease, so my country says your country has
it too) as I discovered, nearly to my cost, last year on the way home from
a meeting by a rather circuitous route.
At least a yellow fever vaccination lasts for 10 years :-)
Deirdre


On 20 February 2014 18:55, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I recommend travelers always have their vaccinations up to date and their
> yellow card with them wherever they go, you never know when/where there
> will be a scare and it ill become required. not to mention that vaccination
> are an easy sort of life insurance to carry.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 20-Feb-14 19:11, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>  A quick question. Can someone clarify if the reams of additional
>> information Brazil requires for visa invitations will still be required?
>> For example proof of income such as salary statements and tax returns.
>>
>> Another thing to note is that several countries require yellow fever>
>> vaccination before you enter Brazil.
>>
>> For example even if Brazil does not insist on a yellow fever vaccine to
>> enter major Brazilian cities far from the Amazonian rain forest, the
>> Indian government makes it mandatory to have a yellow fever vaccine
>> certificate, if you enter India after you travel to anywhere in Brazil.
>> If you have a recent Brazilian entry / exit stamp and don't have a yellow
>> fever vaccine certificate, you will be quarantined.
>>
>> regards
>> suresh
>>
>> On Thu, February 20, 2014 10:10 pm, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Marilia.
>>>
>>> Just to add that more information will come about the visa process.
>>>   But it's clear special arrangements will be made.  You will need
>>> an invitation letter and that will be sent after completing and
>>>
>> expression of interest
>> <http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140223/e0f599c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Feb 22 16:09:35 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 22:09:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AF6D80B3-E2F2-48A5-961F-B683BCAB6E4B@cafonso.ca>

Great to know you will be there, Grande Louis! :)

[] fraterno

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 22/02/2014, at 18:45, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I received an invitation to the 1st HLC meeting in Barcelona on 24th Feb. I shall be there.
> 
> Louis
> 
> <Invitation - HLC BCN.htm>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 23 09:57:20 2014
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 06:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Cyberspace is being used as a battlefield in Venezuela
Message-ID: <1393167440.27223.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>





We read some news about  that Internet went down in most of the city area about midnight on Wednesday, 

According to AP/ Yahoo news, while Hacktivists also have been attacking government websites. Government was also blocking selected websites and a "walkie-talkie" service widely used by protesters. 
>
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/internet-crucial-venezuela-battleground-075124059.html
>
>
>'Internet connectivity was gradually restored to San Cristobal, capital of the western border state of Tachira, Friday morning after an outage of more than 30 hours that also affected smartphones.'

If you have further detail information and statistics, please share? How much sites are blocked? Is there any National CERT handling the Hacktivists? What is the point of view of Civil Society?

Thanks 

Imran Ahmed Shah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140223/b0dd0bbd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fatimacambronero at gmail.com  Sun Feb 23 20:09:46 2014
From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero)
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:09:46 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [aisi-ig-l] The 2014 IGF Themes
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10ZKncV63xsaPO2MSiRBynNCb2MbDQEZkRk8UDW_8+23w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t8w1v0zbaisi-ig-l@dgroups.org>
	<CADFgh10ZKncV63xsaPO2MSiRBynNCb2MbDQEZkRk8UDW_8+23w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHY4F=zZphF0UJb+v+U+vypbMZCWZA8cvON564zsfUnnujBMkg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Nnenna, All,

Thanks for sending this report.
Just a small correction: the theme number 1 was finally "Policies enabling
Access".
The rest of the themes are like you have shared.

2. Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
3. Internet as engine for growth & Development
4. IGF and the Future of Internet ecosystem
5.  Enhancing Digital Trust
6. Internet and Human Rights
7. Critical Internet Resources
8. Emerging Issues


Best Regards,
Fatima


2014-02-21 7:58 GMT-03:00 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:

>
> Below and attached are the propsed IGF Themes for 2014 as adopted by the
> IGF/MAG meeting in Geneva yesterday:
>
>
>
> 1.      Local policies enabling Internet Access
>
> 2.      Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
>
> 3.      Internet as an engine for growth and development
>
> 4.      IGF and the Future of Internet ecosystem
>
> 5.      Enhancing Digital Trust
>
> 6.      Internet and Human Rights
>
> 7.      Critical Internet Resources
>
> 8.      Emerging Issues
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Fatima Cambronero*
Abogada-Argentina

Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
Twitter: @facambronero
Skype: fatima.cambronero

*Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:*
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

*Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:*
http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/

*Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140223/4c88da45/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ceo at bnnrc.net  Mon Feb 24 05:11:21 2014
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:11:21 +0600
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open Letter by Indian civil
 society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil,
 April, 2014
In-Reply-To: <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <CANf7=M3ToULno_GMXOMJe4K3q=rG_oPnoUwmqta4sKDh99ONaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAEc4Ok-58hEcPO6Mck-qTyOJONX7U7u2rcBV8azrCUobe7+vfQ@mail.gmail.com>

We would be very happy if you include
*Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) *as endorsement
organisation.



*Bazlu*
________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|*
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
*[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social
Council]*

House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|*  Bangladesh*|*
Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647
Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr <bnnrc at bd.drik.net>
cbd at gmail.com *|*
www.bnnrc.net





On 24 February 2014 16:04, Avis Momeni <avismomeni at yahoo.fr> wrote:

>
> Dear Rishab,
> Greetings from Cameroon,
> May be it will be appropriated in this letter when disagree Prof. Virgilio
> Almeida's choice, to propose a consensus person that all of you as civil
> societies organizations would like to be appointed in regards of the
> challenges you are all looking for.
>
>  Kind regards.
> Avis.
>
>  Avis MOMENI
> Secretary General
> PROTEGE QV
> P.O Box 4888 Yaounde
> Tel/Fax:(237) 22.31.85.46
> CAMEROON
> Please take a few glances
> at: www.protegeqv.org
>
>
>
>
> Le Samedi 22 février 2014 19h50, Rishab Bailey <rishab.bailey at gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to
> send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on
> the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year,
> regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting.
>
> This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society
> organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance
> space.
>
> (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows:
> 1. Centre for Communication Governance
> 2. Centre for Internet and Society
> 3. Digital Empowerment Foundation
> 4. Free Software Movement of India
> 5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy
> 6. Internet Democracy Project
> 7. IT for Change
> 8. Open Knowledge Community
> 9. Society for Knowledge Commons
> 10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India)
>
> We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014)
> (together with any further endorsements received).
>
> Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do
> let me know at the earliest possible.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Rishab Bailey
> for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing
> governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social
> justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a
> biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
> ----------------------------------------
> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing
> governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social
> justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a
> biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140224/ba0a439c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Feb 24 06:21:44 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:51:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open Letter by Indian civil
 society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil,
 April, 2014
In-Reply-To: <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <CANf7=M3ToULno_GMXOMJe4K3q=rG_oPnoUwmqta4sKDh99ONaA@mail.gmail.com> <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <530B2B48.3000706@itforchange.net>


In the current circumstances, I think it is best that one of the three 
civil society members of the High Level Committee (HLC) should be picked 
up as civil society co-chair... All the three HLC  members came through 
a civil society nomination process. This is what got done in the case of 
academic community co chair.. One of three HLC academic community 
members - Jeanette
- was picked as academic community co chair.

It will be good if the major civil society networks can support the 
letter from India civil society, and together propose the above way to 
go forward....

Whatever we do needs to be done fast, in the next 2-3 days..

Can the respective coordinators etc take up the task..

thanks

parminder


On Monday 24 February 2014 03:34 PM, Avis Momeni wrote:
> Dear Rishab,
> Greetings from Cameroon,
> May be it will be appropriated in this letter when disagree Prof. Virgilio Almeida's choice, to propose a consensus person that all of you as civil societies organizations would like to be appointed in regards of the challenges you are all looking for.
>
>   Kind regards.
> Avis.
>
>   Avis MOMENI
> Secretary General
> PROTEGE QV
> P.O Box 4888 Yaounde
> Tel/Fax:(237) 22.31.85.46
> CAMEROON
> Please take a few glances
> at: www.protegeqv.org
>   
>
>
>
> Le Samedi 22 février 2014 19h50, Rishab Bailey <rishab.bailey at gmail.com> a écrit :
>   
> Dear Friends,
>
> Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to
> send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on
> the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year,
> regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting.
>
> This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society
> organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance
> space.
>
> (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows:
> 1. Centre for Communication Governance
> 2. Centre for Internet and Society
> 3. Digital Empowerment Foundation
> 4. Free Software Movement of India
> 5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy
> 6. Internet Democracy Project
> 7. IT for Change
> 8. Open Knowledge Community
> 9. Society for Knowledge Commons
> 10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India)
>
> We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014)
> (together with any further endorsements received).
>
> Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do
> let me know at the earliest possible.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Rishab Bailey
> for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
> ----------------------------------------
> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Mon Feb 24 08:49:15 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:19:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open Letter by
 Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held
 in Brazil, April, 2014
In-Reply-To: <530B2B48.3000706@itforchange.net>
References: <CANf7=M3ToULno_GMXOMJe4K3q=rG_oPnoUwmqta4sKDh99ONaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<530B2B48.3000706@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHCE_Ee3gFp5esMbF5oGcFUQOL049uyxRRp4RyHeanGsAg@mail.gmail.com>

I don't think we should provide an alternative ourselves - that is not the
point, and if the organisers have appointed a member of the HLMC as
co-chair for another stakeholder group, they know that this is an option.

We could perhaps indicate that the Joint NomCom under Ian's leadership is
ready to provide any support or feedback that the Chair might need on this
decision - that is if the Joint NomCom agrees to taking up this role of
course.

Best,
Anja


On 24 February 2014 16:51, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> In the current circumstances, I think it is best that one of the three
> civil society members of the High Level Committee (HLC) should be picked up
> as civil society co-chair... All the three HLC  members came through a
> civil society nomination process. This is what got done in the case of
> academic community co chair.. One of three HLC academic community members -
> Jeanette
> - was picked as academic community co chair.
>
> It will be good if the major civil society networks can support the letter
> from India civil society, and together propose the above way to go
> forward....
>
> Whatever we do needs to be done fast, in the next 2-3 days..
>
> Can the respective coordinators etc take up the task..
>
> thanks
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Monday 24 February 2014 03:34 PM, Avis Momeni wrote:
>
>> Dear Rishab,
>> Greetings from Cameroon,
>> May be it will be appropriated in this letter when disagree Prof.
>> Virgilio Almeida's choice, to propose a consensus person that all of you as
>> civil societies organizations would like to be appointed in regards of the
>> challenges you are all looking for.
>>
>>   Kind regards.
>> Avis.
>>
>>   Avis MOMENI
>> Secretary General
>> PROTEGE QV
>> P.O Box 4888 Yaounde
>> Tel/Fax:(237) 22.31.85.46
>> CAMEROON
>> Please take a few glances
>> at: www.protegeqv.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Le Samedi 22 février 2014 19h50, Rishab Bailey <rishab.bailey at gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>   Dear Friends,
>>
>> Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to
>> send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on
>> the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year,
>> regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting.
>>
>> This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society
>> organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance
>> space.
>>
>> (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows:
>> 1. Centre for Communication Governance
>> 2. Centre for Internet and Society
>> 3. Digital Empowerment Foundation
>> 4. Free Software Movement of India
>> 5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy
>> 6. Internet Democracy Project
>> 7. IT for Change
>> 8. Open Knowledge Community
>> 9. Society for Knowledge Commons
>> 10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India)
>>
>> We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014)
>> (together with any further endorsements received).
>>
>> Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do
>> let me know at the earliest possible.
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Rishab Bailey
>> for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing
>> governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social
>> justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a
>> biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
>> ----------------------------------------
>> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing
>> governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social
>> justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a
>> biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140224/2345fd77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb 24 08:58:55 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:28:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open
 Letter by Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG'
 being held in Brazil, April, 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCE_Ee3gFp5esMbF5oGcFUQOL049uyxRRp4RyHeanGsAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANf7=M3ToULno_GMXOMJe4K3q=rG_oPnoUwmqta4sKDh99ONaA@mail.gmail.com> <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <530B2B48.3000706@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHCE_Ee3gFp5esMbF5oGcFUQOL049uyxRRp4RyHeanGsAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2A793471-1BED-41EB-9E84-0303F98F096E@hserus.net>

+1 for the letter - so far I believe the only person I can find in google by that name is an assistant professor of marketing with a former career as a PR exec.

Also +1 for your suggestion that we not tie the organizers' hands by proposing such a specific alternative.

--srs (iPad)

> On 24-Feb-2014, at 19:19, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
> 
> I don't think we should provide an alternative ourselves - that is not the point, and if the organisers have appointed a member of the HLMC as co-chair for another stakeholder group, they know that this is an option.
> 
> We could perhaps indicate that the Joint NomCom under Ian's leadership is ready to provide any support or feedback that the Chair might need on this decision - that is if the Joint NomCom agrees to taking up this role of course.
> 
> Best,
> Anja
> 
> 
>> On 24 February 2014 16:51, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>> In the current circumstances, I think it is best that one of the three civil society members of the High Level Committee (HLC) should be picked up as civil society co-chair... All the three HLC  members came through a civil society nomination process. This is what got done in the case of academic community co chair.. One of three HLC academic community members - Jeanette
>> - was picked as academic community co chair.
>> 
>> It will be good if the major civil society networks can support the letter from India civil society, and together propose the above way to go forward....
>> 
>> Whatever we do needs to be done fast, in the next 2-3 days..
>> 
>> Can the respective coordinators etc take up the task..
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Monday 24 February 2014 03:34 PM, Avis Momeni wrote:
>>> Dear Rishab,
>>> Greetings from Cameroon,
>>> May be it will be appropriated in this letter when disagree Prof. Virgilio Almeida's choice, to propose a consensus person that all of you as civil societies organizations would like to be appointed in regards of the challenges you are all looking for.
>>> 
>>>   Kind regards.
>>> Avis.
>>> 
>>>   Avis MOMENI
>>> Secretary General
>>> PROTEGE QV
>>> P.O Box 4888 Yaounde
>>> Tel/Fax:(237) 22.31.85.46
>>> CAMEROON
>>> Please take a few glances
>>> at: www.protegeqv.org
>>>   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le Samedi 22 février 2014 19h50, Rishab Bailey <rishab.bailey at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>   Dear Friends,
>>> 
>>> Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to
>>> send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on
>>> the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year,
>>> regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting.
>>> 
>>> This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society
>>> organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance
>>> space.
>>> 
>>> (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows:
>>> 1. Centre for Communication Governance
>>> 2. Centre for Internet and Society
>>> 3. Digital Empowerment Foundation
>>> 4. Free Software Movement of India
>>> 5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy
>>> 6. Internet Democracy Project
>>> 7. IT for Change
>>> 8. Open Knowledge Community
>>> 9. Society for Knowledge Commons
>>> 10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India)
>>> 
>>> We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014)
>>> (together with any further endorsements received).
>>> 
>>> Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do
>>> let me know at the earliest possible.
>>> 
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> Rishab Bailey
>>> for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140224/eeb08828/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Feb 24 10:23:38 2014
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:23:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill>
References: <CACpVkK2H4dhaXeu_2NUKE4cPwKyapLthOufT8q-=Qbb8P2k2dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net>
	<CACpVkK0MUhnW52sRtUbbTMyDRZggNFfQWTCCxYvyv_xP5bC+oA@mail.gmail.com>
	<530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net>
	<CACpVkK2=Dytx8Va4k-CqU7Ro65xqAx-W1mQcSjKgyOaTcDvJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill>
Message-ID: <889c9d1c34464f56a43aeab1a511557d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

I would share Norbert's concerns about a draft initial input. 

But I would not advocate going into the meeting with a completely blank slate.

Why can't the people preparing an initial document try to establish only basic agenda items with pointers to each of the contributions and perhaps outline the similarities and differences among the proposals? 

For example, presuming there are proposals for IANA globalization, you set aside part of the agenda for that, you list all the various proposals about it, with URLs to them, and at most come up with a list of questions to be resolved by the meeting


Milton L Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org




-----Original Message-----
At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as initial input into the process that created the output document. This initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to reach consensus in favor of proposed changes.

If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the “initial input”.

I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Feb 24 18:07:17 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:07:17 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open
 Letter by Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG'
 being held in Brazil, April, 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCE_Ee3gFp5esMbF5oGcFUQOL049uyxRRp4RyHeanGsAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANf7=M3ToULno_GMXOMJe4K3q=rG_oPnoUwmqta4sKDh99ONaA@mail.gmail.com><1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com><530B2B48.3000706@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHCE_Ee3gFp5esMbF5oGcFUQOL049uyxRRp4RyHeanGsAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <83DC95FA3719464483AFFEEE2452055C@Toshiba>

Just some background here -

When I first heard rumours that this might happen – about a month ago from memory – I wrote to Adiel from 1net, Carlos Afonso, and Hartmut Glaser asking them what the process for appointment of Co-chairs was and whether they were involved. All three wrote back that they were not involved and it was a personal choice for Prof Almeida.

I then wrote to Prof Almeida in a personal capacity, informing him that civil society had a representative process that could be utilised if he would like advice from us, and would he like us to submit a slate of names for his consideration? Indeed I indicated a few likely names in my letter of people we might nominate as examples – just to ensure that it could not be said that only one name was submitted. I never received a reply.

I am also aware that, after the appointment, the civil society 1net steering committee representatives raised questions, and were officially told that this was out of scope because this was a decision for the Chair. However, I believe that they were told informally in  the Webex record that 1net would have been consulted before a decision was made.

Which, given that 1net is the co-organiser of the conference, I suspect is the case, although I am 100% sure what Adiel told me was true from his perspective. (likewise for Carlos and Hartmut of course)

Given that Subi’s past involvement with civil society on internet governance issues is largely related to her MAG membership, I suspect what happened is that some prominent member/members of the technical community active in MAG matters were informally asked to submit a name or comment on the suggestion of Subi (she would have written and offered her services, I am sure.),and without any further thought did so. After all, they are used to making decisions without consultation with other stakeholder representatives and multistakeholder processes of consultation where civil society should be involved in civil society appointments are quite new to them. 

That’s my hypothesis at this point of time. So I don’t feel inclined to blame Prof Almeida – rather, whoever it was who recommended her to Prof Almeida without consulting civil society has to learn this is not appropriate process.  Perhaps someone reading here could copy this to the appropriate person and make it known that next time it would be advisable to refer such suggestions to the appropriate stakeholder group.

Given how quickly all of this happened and the fairly chaotic nature of Brazil preparations, I am inclined to think it was just a thoughtless action from someone who I hope will learn from this experience and refer such suggestions appropriately next time. So while I am pleased to see the Indian letter raising these questions and think it is entirely appropriate to raise them, I think it is simply the result of poorly considered rushed processes and a history of not consulting other stakeholder groups, and that hopefully those responsible will learn from this mistake.

Ian Peter

 

From: Anja Kovacs 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:49 AM
To: parminder 
Cc: Avis Momeni ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; cone-elist at net-equality.org ; Best Bits 
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open Letter by Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil, April, 2014

I don't think we should provide an alternative ourselves - that is not the point, and if the organisers have appointed a member of the HLMC as co-chair for another stakeholder group, they know that this is an option.


We could perhaps indicate that the Joint NomCom under Ian's leadership is ready to provide any support or feedback that the Chair might need on this decision - that is if the Joint NomCom agrees to taking up this role of course.


Best,
Anja




On 24 February 2014 16:51, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


  In the current circumstances, I think it is best that one of the three civil society members of the High Level Committee (HLC) should be picked up as civil society co-chair... All the three HLC  members came through a civil society nomination process. This is what got done in the case of academic community co chair.. One of three HLC academic community members - Jeanette
  - was picked as academic community co chair.

  It will be good if the major civil society networks can support the letter from India civil society, and together propose the above way to go forward....

  Whatever we do needs to be done fast, in the next 2-3 days..

  Can the respective coordinators etc take up the task..

  thanks

  parminder 



  On Monday 24 February 2014 03:34 PM, Avis Momeni wrote:

    Dear Rishab,
    Greetings from Cameroon,
    May be it will be appropriated in this letter when disagree Prof. Virgilio Almeida's choice, to propose a consensus person that all of you as civil societies organizations would like to be appointed in regards of the challenges you are all looking for.

      Kind regards.
    Avis.

      Avis MOMENI
    Secretary General
    PROTEGE QV
    P.O Box 4888 Yaounde
    Tel/Fax:(237) 22.31.85.46
    CAMEROON
    Please take a few glances
    at: www.protegeqv.org
      


    Le Samedi 22 février 2014 19h50, Rishab Bailey <rishab.bailey at gmail.com> a écrit :

      Dear Friends,

    Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to
    send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on
    the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year,
    regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting.

    This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society
    organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance
    space.

    (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows:
    1. Centre for Communication Governance
    2. Centre for Internet and Society
    3. Digital Empowerment Foundation
    4. Free Software Movement of India
    5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy
    6. Internet Democracy Project
    7. IT for Change
    8. Open Knowledge Community
    9. Society for Knowledge Commons
    10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India)

    We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014)
    (together with any further endorsements received).

    Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do
    let me know at the earliest possible.

    Thanks and regards,
    Rishab Bailey
    for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India




    ----------------------------------------
    This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.
    ----------------------------------------
    This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net.




  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
  To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140225/b511aca2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Feb 25 01:42:18 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:12:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] It is isnt about privacy, it is about pervasive social
 control
Message-ID: <530C3B4A.1060606@itforchange.net>


Last year Michael Gurstein wrote this blog post

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/snowden-isnt-just-about-surveillance-it-is-much-much-much-worse/

Now see this news story


  "The Paragraph Began to Self-Delete": Did NSA Hack Computer of Snowden
  Biographer & Edit Book Draft?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFO6-Efiz9k&list=TLQKcRblWeSRn2b96VGW4i3KurBC8Vx-1_

parminder

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140225/c707f62f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Tue Feb 25 05:36:52 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:36:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit
 - IG
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBeYLhR=Hc1fbz9POrJCSie3-+KPWyN+Tw59qDOKDt1Hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHCnXpJAzM0puvfhsNfm6_SXaF+LaoOALE_C4uCcamDFSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHA0FLcsHYzVUkzQ=+eOJK-+27jwN-KgFRtvsgusZNFUww@mail.gmail.com>
	<0b7b01cf272a$123ef7e0$36bce7a0$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHBeYLhR=Hc1fbz9POrJCSie3-+KPWyN+Tw59qDOKDt1Hw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+b4ieeLXB3u77GBhvhS9pnbU=__tErp24YMZm2+wwn=bg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Anja, dear all,

I'm very late in replying to this thread but I had taken note I *did* want
to reply, as there are some important points being raised here.

For the record, I'm not speaking *on behalf* of the European Commission
right now, although most of what I am saying is based on the official
position of the European Commission on Internet governance, as recently
adopted on 12.2.2014 (Communication on Internet Policy and Governance -
Europe's role in shaping the future of the Internet, available at
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2014:0072:FIN:EN:HTML
).


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> Dear Michael,
>
> My apologies for the gaps in my replies, it's been a challenge keeping up
> with email this month, but I did still want to respond. Please see inline.
>
>
> On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Anja,
>>
>>
>>
>> Inline...
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:03 AM
>>
>> *To:* michael gurstein
>> *Cc:* Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm;
>> &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Michael,
>>
>> When I talk about decentralisation, this is not simply a vague notion,
>> but a reference to a vision and plan which already consists of several
>> components and is slowly gaining more and more detail. The end goal of this
>> work is to have quite a detailed map. The challenge will be to make sure
>> that everyone has access to that map, but at least (if not more) to the
>> extent that people can find their way in the UN system, I would think we
>> can make sure that people can find their way in this ecosystem as well.
>>
>> *[MG>] I'd be very interested to see this... However, I think it is
>> important to distinguish between decentralization of processes and
>> decentralization of power... the first without the second is simply making
>> busywork...  my feeling is that much of discussion that you are pointing to
>> is concerned with this ...*
>>
>> *Decentralizing/deconcentrating centralized power comes not through
>> decentralizing processes but through challenging and contesting for power -
>> a situation where "decentralization" of one's forces would seem to be a
>> recipe for failure...  *
>>
> [AK]: Yes, that is a good point. But at the same time, I would presume
> that you would also not want that centralised force to be a concentrated
> one (as in, limited to a very few players who then ultimately become
> extremely powerful, be these players from civil society or another
> stakeholder group). Any suggestions then how to strengthen the force, but
> not the concentration?
>

I'm very much looking forward to the (interim) results of Anja's (and I
guess other people's?) work. The notion of a "map" and ways to navigate it
were already raised a number of years ago - including by Switzerland and
the European Union - at one of the various Geneva-based preparatory
meetings. The European Commission discussed it for some time with EU Member
States. It seems to me that there is quite some consensus for this idea.

This is also one of the rationales behind an initiative that the European
Commission has been working on for some time, i.e. the idea of a Global
Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO). I think I have already bothered people
extensively about this, so I will not elaborate too much; this is simply to
say that that in my view it is not sufficient to "build a map", one also
has to design the tools to make sure that the map is updated. In my
experience sustainability has to be in-built in any approach for it to
succeed.

(And by the way and before people jump up and down, GIPO is not a new idea
per se and certainly took inspiration, consciously or unconsciously, by
many people / organisations which are active in the Internet (governance)
space).

On the issue of decentralisation of process / decentralisation of power, I
think it is an important distinction to make; and we would be naive not to
recognise that an often-used tactic by everyone who has power in a
particular moment (which is not only governments or businesses, by the way
- I saw the same technique used by many NGOs, sometimes for meritorious,
sometimes for rather nefarious reasons) is to create "yet another
discussion".

I think a certain dose of duplication and "let's create something new" is
unavoidable as the importance of the Internet grows and is recognised as
such. I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing - it can also
functions a a counter-weight to the "old boys' / girls' club" mentality.

Call me naive, but I do think that if the right tools to gather / process /
use information are in place, more diversification becomes a tool for
progressive change, not for ossification.

In fact, to the extent that that ecosystem would actually build on the
>> existing UN system (which is an integral part of what we propose), this
>> decentralisation should even make it easier for groups that are not yet
>> involved in Internet governance but that are already involved in particular
>> debates at the global level to find their way to relevant internet
>> governance debates, as those debates would then often come to the venues in
>> which they are already working, rather than these groups having to go and
>> look for these venues and debates.
>>
>> *[MG>] Potentially interesting but again I'd like to see the details*
>>
>> [AK]: Work in progress...
>

Civil servants do not often get to ask this question - we are usually on
the receiving end of (irate) requests to this effect - so pardon me if I
ask: any Estimated Time of Arrival? :)


> Contrary to your claim, such a system, as we also explain in the short
>> paper on our ideas which I have shared earlier, would actually benefit
>> developing country actors - be it governments or civil society - in
>> particular, as for us knowing beforehand that a particular process is going
>> to actually address a particular concern is a far more important factor in
>> deciding whether to invest very limited resources than it is for many
>> developed country actors.
>>
>> *[MG>] Potentially true particularly if there was something more than
>> busywork processes involved in these multiple venues, but again need
>> details... (there were none in the short paper that you pointed to, which was
>> part of the reason for my reacting as I did... *
>>
>> *As an example, the challenge in the WIPO discussions I believe, was to
>> create a real venue for LDC participation and get away from the multiple
>> empty technical and narrowly focused discussions that (were deliberately
>> designed?) to sap the LDC energies and resources... it was only when the
>> LDC's insisted on a specific framework to address their issues that any
>> real progress (from their perspective) was achieved..*
>>
>> [AK]: But isn't this then something that can be done in multiple Internet
> governance venues as well? As I have said before, I really think we have to
> move away from thinking of the Internet as an issue, to thinking of it as a
> space. That is an argument in favour of recognising different venues as
> being the appropriate places to discuss and decide on different Internet
> governance issues. But arguing in favour of such decentralisation doesn't
> stop us from also arguing in favour of an overarching framework that guides
> both the development of this architecture in itself and the processes that
> take place in the various different segments of it.
>

I'm not sure you'll be happy to read this, Anja (just joking :) but this
combination, i.e. (1) moving to issue-based, rather than
organisation-based, approaches; on the basis of (2) collectively developed,
rules-based frameworks for engagement, looks quite similar to the position
of the European Commission as expressed in its Communicaton of 12.2.2014
(see beginning of my email for references). E.g.: "*Stronger interactions
between stakeholders involved in Internet governance should be fostered via
issue-based dialogues, instead of through new bodies. This would allow
relevant stakeholders to address specific challenges across structural and
organisational boundaries. Such arrangements could be inspired by the
distributed architecture of the Internet which should serve as a model for
better interactions between all parties.*"


> In fact, increasingly I am wondering whether, if we want
> multistakeholderism to work, we maybe need something like a Constitution
> for multistakeholder processes - not just a set of principles, but a more
> detailed, binding document that outlines, for example, what kind of
> criteria a particular participant (or at least non-government participant)
> needs to fulfil in order to participate in a particular kind of process
> (and criteria might be a little more open-ended and flexible for some
> processes, more stringent for others, possibly guided by the nature of the
> outcomes of the process in question). If there isn't a document that binds
> us on these things, I can't really see at the moment how we can avoid
> capture.
>

I agree - but, perhaps more importantly, the European Commission also does
agree that more clarity on what we mean by "multistakeholder processes"
would be helpful. See in particular section 5 of the above-mentioned
Communication.

Best,

Andrea
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140225/7f70350f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr  Tue Feb 25 14:21:26 2014
From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:21:26 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [aisi-ig-l] The 2014 IGF
 Themes
In-Reply-To: <CAHY4F=zZphF0UJb+v+U+vypbMZCWZA8cvON564zsfUnnujBMkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t8w1v0zbaisi-ig-l@dgroups.org>	<CADFgh10ZKncV63xsaPO2MSiRBynNCb2MbDQEZkRk8UDW_8+23w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHY4F=zZphF0UJb+v+U+vypbMZCWZA8cvON564zsfUnnujBMkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1393356086.13697.YahooMailNeo@web171305.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

Thanks for the info Nnenna.
 
___________________________________
Asama Abel Excel
President and CEO
I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL
3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué
 Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué
Douala Cameroon
E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net
T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76  (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama, My blogWeb: www.ivission.net 
Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission
Facebook: ivission.internationl
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission 
NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission



Le Lundi 24 février 2014 2h10, Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero at gmail.com> a écrit :
 
Dear Nnenna, All,

Thanks for sending this report.
Just a small correction: the theme number 1 was finally "Policies enabling Access".
The rest of the themes are like you have shared. 

2. Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
3. Internet as engine for growth & Development
4. IGF and the Future of Internet ecosystem
5.  Enhancing Digital Trust
6. Internet and Human Rights
7. Critical Internet Resources
8. Emerging Issues


Best Regards,
Fatima




2014-02-21 7:58 GMT-03:00 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:


>Below and attached are the propsed IGF Themes for 2014 as adopted by the IGF/MAG meeting in Geneva yesterday:
>
>
>
>1.      Local policies enabling Internet Access
>
>2.      Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
>
>3.      Internet as an engine for growth and development
>
>4.      IGF and the Future of Internet ecosystem
>
>5.      Enhancing Digital Trust
>
>6.      Internet and Human Rights
>
>7.      Critical Internet Resources
>
>8.      Emerging Issues
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>


-- 

Fatima Cambronero
Abogada-Argentina

Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
Twitter: @facambronero
Skype: fatima.cambronero

Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions: https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es  

Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions: http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/  

Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): http://www.internetsociety.org/



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140225/e3a4f042/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Tue Feb 25 21:42:36 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:42:36 -0800
Subject: [governance] Conference: ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The
 Road to Sao Paulo, and Beyond, Singapore 21 March 2014
Message-ID: <EB21BCC6-6108-4793-800C-792252BD5F23@gmail.com>

Hello,

If interested, please see the below.  Apologies if you receive this from more than one mail list.

------

"ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paulo, and Beyond"

A conference to be held on Friday 21 March 2014 at the ICANN 49 meeting venue, the Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore, in the Olivia Room, from 10:00 to 18:00.

Organized by the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, with the generous support of ICANN.

Logistical information, conference registration (important!) and the program are now online at http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/

We very much want this to be an inclusive cross-community dialogue, so we hope people will consider attending, either in person or remotely, and please do share this with potentially interested colleagues.  We are compiling some background materials related to the session topics for addition to the web site, and personal/organizational written inputs would be very much welcome.


Overview of the meeting

10:00-10:15     Welcome and Overview 
10:15-10:45     Update on the Sao Paulo Meeting
10:45-12:00     Panel 1 - Setting the Scene: Overview of Recent Agenda-Setting Initiatives
12:00-13:00     Lunch
13:00-14:15     Panel 2 - Internet Governance Principles
14:15-15:45     Panel 3 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Globalization
15:45-16:00     Coffee break
16:00-17:30     Panel 4 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Institutional Innovation
17:15-17:45     Keynote Assessment by Larry Strickling,
			Asst. Secretary of Commerce, Government of the United States
17:45-18:00     Concluding Observations
18:00-19:30     Reception with Fadi Chehadé, CEO of ICANN


Thanks,

Bill


***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140225/421c01e3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue Feb 25 22:19:12 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:19:12 +0800
Subject: [governance] Save the date notice - Civil Society Coordination
 Meeting for NetMundial
Message-ID: <EB80980C-3077-4E53-BC0E-DAD50467A5C3@Malcolm.id.au>

Please save the date for this Civil Society Coordination Meeting for NetMundial, a joint civil society strategy gathering independently organised ahead of NetMundial 2014, to be held in and all day 22 April, at a venue to be confirmed soon in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Well-funded and well organized interest groups from within the technical and business communities will be advancing their agendas at the Global  Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, with the  intent of securing outcomes that favour their perceived interests.  Civil society's responsibility is to ensure that these outcomes do not  conflict with the broader, long-term public interest.  Our challenge is therefore to be equally well organised as the other stakeholder  representatives, even though we do not enjoy the same funding and  staffing resources that they do.  

This event will provide an opportunity for us to consolidate and take stock of the work that we have done in preparing for the meeting, with the objective of empowering civil society participants to present a unified and effective front at the meeting (as far as possible, and as consistent with our diversity).

The meeting is open only to those who identify as civil society in its wider sense. 
Please register your interest in attending here: http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination

If you do not have any source of travel funding for NetMundial 2014 and would like to be considered for travel support, you can also indicate this on the registration page. Please note that travel support will only be given to those who have also registered for NetMundial 2014, and you must separately register for both events. 

Please note that NetMundial have the deadline of Feb, 28th for "expression of interest", which should be done here: 
http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression

If you are already booking your ticket, please, have in mind we will also have an strategical dinner on April, 21st. 

This meeting is a joint initiative of 
Association for Progressive Communications - APC , Global
Article 19, Brazil
BestBits, Global
Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression - CELE, Argentina
Derechos Digitales, Chile
Global Partners Digital, UK
Institutito de Defesa do Consumidor - IDEC, Brazil
Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade - ITS, Brazil
WebWeWant, Global
Arrangements for the meeting are being made collaboratively by a group  of volunteers drawn from the above organisations and networks, and you too can join.  If you are interested to collaborate with the organization of this event or even to expand Civil Society activities surrounding NetMundial, please reply off-list and we will  fill you in on the tasks where your input and assistance is needed.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/4e0f01a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/4e0f01a6/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ceo at bnnrc.net  Tue Feb 25 22:40:15 2014
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:40:15 +0600
Subject: [governance] Save the date notice - Civil Society Coordination
 Meeting for NetMundial
In-Reply-To: <EB80980C-3077-4E53-BC0E-DAD50467A5C3@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <EB80980C-3077-4E53-BC0E-DAD50467A5C3@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <CAEc4Ok-aUP-0tkLoaojsqvLuZbQYKYUweJ5Bh6++fGCP=+tzzw@mail.gmail.com>

*Dear Jeremy Malcolm,*
Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC)
In Bangladesh, from civil society side  we have already started preparation
for
Road2
Sao Paulo.

*Major activities are:*
1. Organize pre-consultation on  NetMundial
2. To develop a People's Charter on Internet Governance, consultation with
country wide multi-stakeholders

3. To mobilize Government for joining NetMundial


I would be very happy if you provide me travel funding for joining
NetMundial 2014.
In Bangladesh, we need your advice and support for our process.

With best wishes,




*Bazlu*
________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|*
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
*[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social
Council]*

House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|*  Bangladesh*|*
Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647
Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr <bnnrc at bd.drik.net>
cbd at gmail.com *|*
www.bnnrc.net





On 26 February 2014 09:19, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:

> Please save the date for this Civil Society Coordination Meeting for
> NetMundial, a joint civil society strategy gathering independently
> organised ahead of NetMundial 2014, to be held in and all day 22 April, at
> a venue to be confirmed soon in
> Sao Paulo, Brazil.
>
> Well-funded and well organized interest groups from within the technical
> and business communities will be advancing their agendas at the Global
> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, with the
> intent of securing outcomes that favour their perceived interests.  Civil
> society's responsibility is to ensure that these outcomes do not  conflict
> with the broader, long-term public interest.  Our challenge is therefore to
> be equally well organised as the other stakeholder  representatives, even
> though we do not enjoy the same funding and  staffing resources that they
> do.
>
> This event will provide an opportunity for us to consolidate and take
> stock of the work that we have done in preparing for the meeting, with the
> objective of empowering civil society participants to present a unified and
> effective front at the meeting (as far as possible, and as consistent with
> our diversity).
>
> The meeting is open only to those who identify as civil society in its
> wider sense.
> Please register your interest in attending here: *http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination
> <http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination>*
>
> If you do not have any source of travel funding for NetMundial 2014 and
> would like to be considered for travel support, you can also indicate this
> on the registration page. Please note that travel support will only be
> given to those who have also registered for NetMundial 2014, and* you
> must separately register for both events.*
>
> *Please note that NetMundial have the deadline of Feb, 28th for
> "expression of interest", which should be done here: *
> *http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression*<http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression>
>
> If you are already booking your ticket, please, have in mind we will also
> have an strategical dinner on April, 21st.
>
> This meeting is a joint initiative of
>
>    - Association for Progressive Communications - APC , Global
>    - Article 19, Brazil
>    - BestBits, Global
>    - Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression - CELE, Argentina
>    - Derechos Digitales, Chile
>    - Global Partners Digital, UK
>    - Institutito de Defesa do Consumidor - IDEC, Brazil
>    - Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade - ITS, Brazil
>    - WebWeWant, Global
>
> Arrangements for the meeting are being made collaboratively by a group  of
> volunteers drawn from the above organisations and networks, and you too can
> join.  If you are interested to collaborate with the organization of this
> event or even to expand Civil Society activities surrounding NetMundial,
> please reply off-list and we will  fill you in on the tasks where your
> input and assistance is needed.
>
>   --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/56682170/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 26 00:55:23 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:55:23 -0600
Subject: [governance] Starting in 7 minutes - panel with RIR chairs and
 Kieren McCarthy
Message-ID: <530d81cb.L1Pp2s4Nu1FO9+yB%suresh@hserus.net>

At Apricot 2014 - being webcast live

http://2014.apricot.net/program#session/66291

-suresh

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Feb 26 01:40:20 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:40:20 +0900
Subject: [governance] Contributions for NETmundial
Message-ID: <DC7408D7-A83A-42EB-96D1-D1F37D0E097F@glocom.ac.jp>

Contributions for the meeting are now being made available online <http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs> 

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 ceo at bnnrc.net  Wed Feb 26 02:46:12 2014
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:46:12 +0600
Subject: [governance] Contributions for NETmundial
In-Reply-To: <DC7408D7-A83A-42EB-96D1-D1F37D0E097F@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <DC7408D7-A83A-42EB-96D1-D1F37D0E097F@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <CAEc4Ok-S6=EVhTtUtYz8p6ysBtJZHyYv5zEfxSGAH4V0Bbgybw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
In Bangladesh we have already started to develop People's Charter on
Internet Governance with the participation from different stakeholder.

We would like to finalization of * People's Charter on Internet
Governance in Bangladesh *by December 2014. Then we would like submit to
the Prime Minister of Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh for
implementation.

Now we are working on Road to Brazil, Regarding R2 Brazil we will organise
Pre- Consultation in Bangladesh.

We solicit your cooperation.
With solidarity,


*Bazlu*
________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|*
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
*[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social
Council]*

House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|*  Bangladesh*|*
Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647
Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr <bnnrc at bd.drik.net>
cbd at gmail.com *|*
www.bnnrc.ne <http://www.bnnrc.net/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/43f11d47/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From lucabelli at hotmail.it  Wed Feb 26 04:44:10 2014
From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:44:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] RightsCon Session on Net Neutrality
Message-ID: <DUB122-W375EF13747D2FF7836A6BC6800@phx.gbl>

Dear all (apologies for cross-posting), 




I would like to invite you to
attend – on site or remotely – the RightsCon
Silicon Valley session 
on ‘Network
Neutrality: How to Identify Discrimination and Advance Solutions’ that will
take place on 4 March from 16:00 to 17:00 (GMT -8) at the
Mission Bay Conference Center, in San Francisco. 



Please, find below the description of the session.


Best regards, 



Luca

 

Network
Neutrality: 

How to Identify Discrimination and Advance Solutions

 

Organisers:

- Mr Luca Belli, CERSA and founder of the Dynamic
Coalition on Network Neutrality;

- Ms Primavera De Filippi, CERSA,
Berkman Center and co-founder of the DC NN;





Panellists: 

- Ms Raegan MacDonald, ACCESS;

- Ms Elvana Thaçi, Council of Europe;

- Mr Joe McNamee, EDRi;

- Mr Alejandro Pisanty, National Autonomous
University of Mexico and ISOC Mexico;

- Ms Carolina Rossini, New America
Foundation;

- Mr Francisco Vera Hott, Derechos
Digitales;

- Ms Staci Pies,
Microsoft;

- Ms Renata Avila, World Wide Web
Foundation.

 

Format 

This session will take the
form of a “fishbowl”: panellists will first engage in a discussion around the
various facets of the net neutrality debate; after which, the attendees will be
invited to join the panel by rotating in and out of the fishbowl, thus actively
contributing to shaping the dynamics of the second part of the session.

 

Session description

This session will analyse the
instrumental role played by the network neutrality (NN) principle to guarantee
the full enjoyment of human rights and foster a competitive market, and will
focus on concrete solutions aimed at implementing this principle. 

The panellists will underline
the risks of discriminatory Internet-traffic management (ITM) practices and
will suggest technical and policy “remedies” that may be used to mitigate,
avoid or prevent traffic discrimination. Subsequently, the panel will analyse a
selection of national approaches aimed at safeguarding NN. On the one hand,
private sector actors will be asked to identify the approaches that provide the
most “innovation-friendly” environment. On the other hand, civil society actors
will be asked to scrutinise the current approaches, identifying potential
loopholes and pitfalls that may jeopardise Internet-users’ full enjoyment of
fundamental rights and compromise the free flow of information. 

Lastly, the organisers will
discuss the content and role of the model framework on network neutrality,
which has been initiated by the Council of Europe (CoE), elaborated by the Dynamic Coalition on Network
Neutrality and delivered back to the CoE as a working base to elaborate a
“Recommendation on Network Neutrality”



Luca Belli
PhD Candidate in Public Law
CERSA, Université Panthéon-Assas, Paris 2
Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality 

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/1e4083cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 05:58:46 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:58:46 -0400
Subject: Fwd: [governance] Survey on Civil Society Steering Group options
In-Reply-To: <EDAF80F2C3CE4E21A0C5B19D9C211411@Toshiba>
References: <EDAF80F2C3CE4E21A0C5B19D9C211411@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5M+PPuGcooa+dNwD5KT42VbRcsNdSjwcn083bsmFD=4w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi.
I'm re-sending Ian's original message to remind those of you who may wish
to respond and haven't yet that the survey will close at the end of the
month.
Best wishes
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: 19 February 2014 18:59
Subject: [governance] Survey on Civil Society Steering Group options
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org


  Below is a link to a survey set up so that you can input your thoughts on
the future of the Civil Society Steering Group - which was set up in haste
to deal with some nomination issues where it was important that civil
society present joint nominations. The aim is to expand this group and your
input is welcome into how this should be done.

Survey closes end of February.


http://igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=75933&lang=en


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




-- 
"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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/8aa74a90/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 06:02:45 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:02:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5pXd8OaL6=d9Sq32E2Arbgaq43zT-CAyYWqOr_fpWhYw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Louis,
I hope that the meeting went well.
Glad you were there
Best wishes
Deirdre


On 22 February 2014 13:45, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I received an invitation to the 1st HLC meeting in Barcelona on 24th Feb.
> I shall be there.
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
"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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/f5415868/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From amedinagomez at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 06:56:53 2014
From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:56:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] RightsCon Session on Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <DUB122-W375EF13747D2FF7836A6BC6800@phx.gbl>
References: <DUB122-W375EF13747D2FF7836A6BC6800@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAM-_sgjyM12Q6NyZiVqdtPtgS3ts5wHuU7HxFz9E8xEVpLVtyw@mail.gmail.com>

Luca buenos dìas.
Muchas gracias por la invitación
Antonio Medina Gomez


2014-02-26 4:44 GMT-05:00 Luca Belli <lucabelli at hotmail.it>:

> Dear all (apologies for cross-posting),
>
>
>
> I would like to invite you to attend - on site or remotely - the RightsCon
> Silicon Valley<http://accessnow.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=fc9104f573b1c10e0f6a61438&id=f362c36c18&e=c91ac72cae> session
>
>
> on '*Network Neutrality: How to Identify Discrimination and Advance
> Solutions*' that will
>
> take place on 4 March from 16:00 to 17:00 (GMT -8) at the Mission Bay
> Conference Center,
>
> in San Francisco.
>
>
> Please, find below the description of the session.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Luca
>
>
>
> *Network Neutrality: *
>
> *How to Identify Discrimination and Advance* *Solutions*
>
>
>
> *Organisers:*
>
> - Mr *Luca Belli*, CERSA and founder of the Dynamic Coalition on Network
> Neutrality;
> - Ms *Primavera De Filippi*, CERSA, Berkman Center and co-founder of the
> DC NN;
>
>
>  *Panellists: *
>
> - Ms *Raegan MacDonald*, ACCESS;
>
> - Ms *Elvana Thaçi*, Council of Europe;
>
> - Mr *Joe McNamee*, EDRi;
>
> - Mr *Alejandro Pisanty*, National Autonomous University of Mexico and
> ISOC Mexico;
>
> - Ms *Carolina Rossini*, New America Foundation;
>
> - Mr *Francisco Vera Hott*, Derechos Digitales;
>
> - Ms *Staci Pies*, Microsoft;
>
> - Ms *Renata Avila*, World Wide Web Foundation.
>
>
>
> *Format *
>
> This session will take the form of a "fishbowl": panellists will first
> engage in a discussion around the various facets of the net neutrality
> debate; after which, the attendees will be invited to join the panel by
> rotating in and out of the fishbowl, thus actively contributing to shaping
> the dynamics of the second part of the session.
>
>
>
> *Session description*
>
> This session will analyse the instrumental role played by the network
> neutrality (NN) principle to guarantee the full enjoyment of human rights
> and foster a competitive market, and will focus on concrete solutions aimed
> at implementing this principle.
>
> The panellists will underline the risks of discriminatory Internet-traffic
> management (ITM) practices and will suggest technical and policy "remedies"
> that may be used to mitigate, avoid or prevent traffic discrimination.
> Subsequently, the panel will analyse a selection of national approaches
> aimed at safeguarding NN. On the one hand, private sector actors will be
> asked to identify the approaches that provide the most
> "innovation-friendly" environment. On the other hand, civil society actors
> will be asked to scrutinise the current approaches, identifying potential
> loopholes and pitfalls that may jeopardise Internet-users' full enjoyment
> of fundamental rights and compromise the free flow of information.
> Lastly, the organisers will discuss the content and role of the model
> framework on network neutrality, which has been initiated by the Council of
> Europe (CoE), elaborated by the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality<http://networkneutrality.info/sources.html>and delivered back to the CoE as a working base to elaborate a
> "Recommendation on Network Neutrality"
>
>
>
> Luca Belli <http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/luca-belli/24/20/1a4>
> PhD Candidate in Public Law
> CERSA, Université Panthéon-Assas, Paris 2
> <http://www.sorbonne-universites.fr/#KLINK>Dynamic Coalition on Network
> Neutrality <http://networkneutrality.info/about.html>
> * <http://www.sorbonne-universites.fr/#KLINK>*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/98b161df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 11:07:37 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:07:37 -0500
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5pXd8OaL6=d9Sq32E2Arbgaq43zT-CAyYWqOr_fpWhYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN5pXd8OaL6=d9Sq32E2Arbgaq43zT-CAyYWqOr_fpWhYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcz6B=E207hBEnAit-pmNsTcUZ98Y0eq+k6vYydngwcQw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Louis, could you give us any report back from the meeting?
Thank you,
Carol


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Louis,
> I hope that the meeting went well.
> Glad you were there
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 22 February 2014 13:45, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I received an invitation to the 1st HLC meeting in Barcelona on 24th Feb.
>> I shall be there.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "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
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/84865aa7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Feb 26 12:14:39 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:14:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcz6B=E207hBEnAit-pmNsTcUZ98Y0eq+k6vYydngwcQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN5pXd8OaL6=d9Sq32E2Arbgaq43zT-CAyYWqOr_fpWhYw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAcz6B=E207hBEnAit-pmNsTcUZ98Y0eq+k6vYydngwcQw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <82508E6A-24D0-48F5-8EB2-C16D3C2A4E3F@mail.utoronto.ca>

Dear all,
I was not in the room, but on the phone and conference bridge, and I can update you from my notes.  I am sure that Louis will have a better report, but in the meantime:
Agenda: 

1. Welcome message and Introduction of Participants (5 min)

2. Initial remarks (15 min)
     - H.E. Neelie Kroes - Vice President of European Commission for the Digital Agenda
     - D. Víctor Calvo-Sotelo - Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society of Spain (Special Invitee)
     - Minister Paulo Bernardo - Minister of Communications of Brazil

3. Briefing and Introduction of the NETmundial structure and workflow (Secretary Virgílio Almeida) (10 min)
    a. Background
    b. Objectives and expected outcomes
    c. Committees and interactions among them
    d. Content contribution process
    e. Synthesis paper and document drafting
    f.  Important dates
    g. HLMC roles and Agenda

4. Open Floor & Discussion  (40 min)

5. Summary and Closing Remarks (20 min)

1. There was a slight delay in the start of the meeting.  The Minister outlined his brief from the President of Brazil, to do the conference in a multistakeholder way.  He stressed that they needed to come up with principles accepted by the stakeholders, and a roadmap for how to get there.  Our role, as the high-level multi-stakeholder committee, would be to set the political tone and foster the involvement of international parties.   He went over the structure and representatives for each committee (slides were promised and I will forward once I receive them).  
The goal is to have a  reference document by mid-march
There will be seven languages, the UN languages plus Portugese.  During the actual meeting in April, the HLMC and the Chairs of Netmundial will seek approval for meeting outputs.
There was further encouragement to all groups to submit both expressions of interest, to attend, and content submissions.  Submissions will be accepted until March 8, expression of interest only until February 28 (I think this is accurate).
Fifteen cities around the world will be connected to the conference [I guess through live streaming] [my apologies if I have mis-named the persons speaking, the audio was not always clear and some were speaking through an interpreter, I focused on the speech and not the speaker]
2.  Neelie Kroes spoke next, she said she did not want another talk show, she expected Sao Paulo to deliver an agreement and a clear roadmap, with concrete actionable milestones. She mentioned the recently released EU statement on Internet policy and governance, saying she knew it would be hard, but we have to deliver a very clear political statement.  She tressed the need to globalize the IANA function, and ensure full respect for human rights.  
The next speaker was Dirk Brengelmann,  who stressed not trying to be too political, focus on laying out the markers for the way forward. (had to leave for another meeting)
Representative of the government of South Africa spoke, stressing that they had not heard as a government what was going on yet.  The business person named from South Africa could not speak for the government. 
Tawfik Jelassi from the Tunisian Ministry agreed we did not need another talk show, need concrete actions and true multi-stakeholder approach.[various others made short statements, but had to rush for their planes.]
Louis Pouzin made an intervention but the audio was not clear so I did not catch it, I will let him speak for himself. 
The meeting ended rather abruptly, I did not hear an announcement of when the next meeting would be, and have not heard yet from the secretariat.  I will seek that information now, but as you can see, there are many blanks in this report, my apologies for not being there in person but it was short notice and far away from Canada. 

Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-02-26, at 11:07 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:

> Dear Louis, could you give us any report back from the meeting?
> Thank you, 
> Carol
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Louis,
> I hope that the meeting went well.
> Glad you were there
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
> 
> 
> On 22 February 2014 13:45, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I received an invitation to the 1st HLC meeting in Barcelona on 24th Feb. I shall be there.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> “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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/1ca7ccc7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 14:42:05 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:42:05 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: INVITE 3/17: The Global War for Internet
 Governance with Dr. Laura DeNardis
In-Reply-To: <1116654703901.1101890603586.170107.7.241401E8@scheduler.constantcontact.com>
References: <1116654703901.1101890603586.170107.7.241401E8@scheduler.constantcontact.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfhoYdASx96MBcAcYO=gmYVX7vG2o3x9+aUOV1aazENhA@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: New America Foundation <communications at newamerica.net>
Date: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM
Subject: INVITE 3/17: The Global War for Internet Governance with Dr. Laura
DeNardis
To: rossini at newamerica.net


         [image: New NAF
Logo]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPIeIz1rF8KKA4Z31y8TOB1OjpACu0bAjvrxanjN-9JRFz8XKgJH6dBdoOYXzukdDxvrQ16HMJmsBRQSiDwqnp-fIaBfBYcSSxqHgfexUI32Cw==>

  *The Global War for Internet Governance with Dr. Laura DeNardis   *




*Monday, March 17, 2014*

*12:15 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.    *


 *New America Foundation*
*1899 L Street NW*
*Suite 400*
*Washington, DC 20036*



[image: RSVP]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPJklQpFvHy6pyAclqK8h8ueu6mwDGt3NoSegfwK2IOSnV5uTDWC05V9DcUq99JL0kEZH33fplf2BjOKlNqApSqYlR9wu4Cyh2gikxZ-_cukmYviX-uV2PqlMOAbHxUOgbo1F6wvHUi5iIi9uhXKx36us_9rvT6_zmt1lWmlJn1L_-sHfd4yRtmx>

Despite its wide reach and powerful global influence, the Internet is a
medium uncontrolled by any one centralized system, organization, or
governing body, a reality that has given rise to all manner of free-speech
issues and cybersecurity concerns. In her book *The Global War for Internet
Governance*, Internet governance scholar and American University professor,
Laura DeNardis reveals the inner power structure of Internet governance on
the international scene and explores the characteristics of Internet
Governance that will ultimately determine Internet freedom.



Rebecca MacKinnon<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPLM54eMwnqDl0rUEHOOH5-DoKinbVziTiQQrV2_Ho9m4g_WKEVKJqyikYZEN35GVLLzMNvH22Zefns-93_2hqPcf-2MTRV5V-w-hFFLx9hxi_hVwBC4Fha8AkAatCKKzX8=>,
author of *Consent of the Networked* and Senior Research Fellow at New
America called The Global War for Internet Governance "required reading"
for understanding Internet governance and power and Jonathan Zittrain,
author of *The Future of the Internet - And How To Stop It* and professor
of Internet Law at Harvard Law School praises it as "an invaluable resource
for anyone wishing to understand the political intricacies behind Internet
protocols and the diverse group of power players vying to influence them."



Please join New America March 17 for the DC book launch and conversation
about the future of Internet governance in relation to free-speech,
cybersecurity, international law, and global power.



*Join the conversation online by using #GlobalInternetGovernance and
following @OTI
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPLOJoE5SLjkSUMpUKOlMSVqECmlwZB0LJZEdK8GWwBH68IwBjIxEIRa8LSFtKLri3pAzoXw8jVjh9ifEaTH5zPXJs5AKt4Nu05PsFF63yO25w==>.
*



*If you are unable to join us in person, please tune in to our live webcast
on the day of the event here
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPJklQpFvHy6pyAclqK8h8ueu6mwDGt3NoSegfwK2IOSnV5uTDWC05V9DcUq99JL0kEZH33fplf2BjOKlNqApSqYlR9wu4Cyh2gikxZ-_cukmYviX-uV2PqlMOAbHxUOgbo1F6wvHUi5iIi9uhXKx36us_9rvT6_zmt1lWmlJn1L_-sHfd4yRtmx>.
No signup is required to view the streaming video. *



*Featured Speakers:*

*Dr. Laura DeNardis
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPJB2-GdZDARjbuKvRlZ387H6D0aK2vKmeRgV4rsmS-9rvvPWpQY-zqQ7NIirjMyfwOBfBDjf2jTos_rT1d9_eCTgAXZIjYmRz4CqdQyWbNjLkUMPBJ1gSBrOPD7hFYc1hGvc5QeerSSDPCRExOwBFpl>*


Author of *The Global War for Internet Governance*

Professor in the School of Communication, American University


*Benoni Belli*
Minister Counselor at the Embassy of Brazil in Washington D.C.

 *Sarah Falvey*
Public Policy & Government Relations Manager, Free Expression and
International Relations at Google


*Emma Llanso*

Director of Center for Democracy and Technology's Free Expression Project



*Moderator:*

*Carolina Rossini
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPKShZcQF5tZEF9YY_5emB6BxtHhg69m_nj3bTHhXHY5DC2khqzSVJ5k5yJiRdZ58YEqcv9-cmPH0qP-RkX3PxLrq0N7NjvgKaUOJs1mKuQXJ7og8Vvo1-hWVCHyNox-CDY=>
*

Project Director, Open Technology Institute, New America



*To RSVP for the event, click on the red button or go to the event page:
 *

*http://newamerica.org/events/2014/the_global_war_for_internet_governance
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPJklQpFvHy6pyAclqK8h8ueu6mwDGt3NoSegfwK2IOSnV5uTDWC05V9DcUq99JL0kEZH33fplf2BjOKlNqApSqYlR9wu4Cyh2gikxZ-_cukmYviX-uV2PqlMOAbHxUOgbo1F6wvHUi5iIi9uhXKx36us_9rvT6_zmt1lWmlJn1L_-sHfd4yRtmx>*



*For questions, contact Kirsten Holtz at New America at (202) 735-2806
<%28202%29%20735-2806> or holtz at newamerica.org
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPJnkeJrwOXgRx83W3Cbi6-UEv8yFJYJrkXLStKyholiCEvly9XUKx5awJmlmHxoGiT8NmHZ-PVSg7ToQp5qncbMh5Ubz46SwTPc14Rog2jIyQT2wHvRfCw9>*



 www.NewAmerica.org<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001uI-l-AmEYPLMA4-5eT5ZqTtQSa21nCTjMkoZQzBD4VI8C8WqKflplmOOXybDJEymOnbB-eJWAD-IX9OAqkOLeQ55SAAga-5XrECKCQgJbK6RsX8sdKE3uA==>




<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001sWE8kxl6Jom3aJ5Hj1X2feZUQaLLxiaSOHiccZij27k%3D&t=001llZmVSORkI_ULh39CH4n9A%3D%3D&reason=001IqezpQbqEsU%3D&llr=cssy7gcab>
<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=TEM_Assoc_209>
This email was sent to rossini at newamerica.net by
communications at newamerica.net |
Update Profile/Email
Address<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&mse=001sWE8kxl6Jom3aJ5Hj1X2feZUQaLLxiaSOHiccZij27k%3D&t=001llZmVSORkI_ULh39CH4n9A%3D%3D&reason=001IqezpQbqEsU%3D&llr=cssy7gcab>
| Instant removal with
SafeUnsubscribe<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001sWE8kxl6Jom3aJ5Hj1X2feZUQaLLxiaSOHiccZij27k%3D&t=001llZmVSORkI_ULh39CH4n9A%3D%3D&reason=001IqezpQbqEsU%3D&llr=cssy7gcab>(tm)
| Privacy Policy <http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>.
New America Foundation | 1899 L Street, NW | Suite 400 | Washington | DC |
20036



-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/81e05afc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 14:45:02 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:45:02 -0500
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
In-Reply-To: <82508E6A-24D0-48F5-8EB2-C16D3C2A4E3F@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN5pXd8OaL6=d9Sq32E2Arbgaq43zT-CAyYWqOr_fpWhYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-FJAcz6B=E207hBEnAit-pmNsTcUZ98Y0eq+k6vYydngwcQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<82508E6A-24D0-48F5-8EB2-C16D3C2A4E3F@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdj+QGiUng3V+xnLFJSjaLW3aw311Y5RxwcOoceE8fvNA@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you :-)


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Dear all,
> I was not in the room, but on the phone and conference bridge, and I can
> update you from my notes.  I am sure that Louis will have a better report,
> but in the meantime:
> Agenda:
>
> 1. Welcome message and Introduction of Participants (5 min)
>
> 2. Initial remarks (15 min)
>      - H.E. Neelie Kroes - Vice President of European Commission for the
> Digital Agenda
>      - D. Víctor Calvo-Sotelo - Secretary of State for Telecommunications
> and Information Society of Spain (Special Invitee)
>      - Minister Paulo Bernardo - Minister of Communications of Brazil
>
> 3. Briefing and Introduction of the NETmundial structure and workflow
> (Secretary Virgílio Almeida) (10 min)
>     a. Background
>     b. Objectives and expected outcomes
>     c. Committees and interactions among them
>     d. Content contribution process
>     e. Synthesis paper and document drafting
>     f.  Important dates
>     g. HLMC roles and Agenda
>
> 4. Open Floor & Discussion  (40 min)
>
> 5. Summary and Closing Remarks (20 min)
>
> 1. There was a slight delay in the start of the meeting.  The Minister
> outlined his brief from the President of Brazil, to do the conference in a
> multistakeholder way.  He stressed that they needed to come up with
> principles accepted by the stakeholders, and a roadmap for how to get
> there.  Our role, as the high-level multi-stakeholder committee, would be
> to set the political tone and foster the involvement of international
> parties.   He went over the structure and representatives for each
> committee (slides were promised and I will forward once I receive them).
> The goal is to have a  reference document by mid-march
> There will be seven languages, the UN languages plus Portugese.  During
> the actual meeting in April, the HLMC and the Chairs of Netmundial will
> seek approval for meeting outputs.
> There was further encouragement to all groups to submit both expressions
> of interest, to attend, and content submissions.  Submissions will be
> accepted until March 8, expression of interest only until February 28 (I
> think this is accurate).
> Fifteen cities around the world will be connected to the conference [I
> guess through live streaming] [my apologies if I have mis-named the persons
> speaking, the audio was not always clear and some were speaking through an
> interpreter, I focused on the speech and not the speaker]
> 2.  Neelie Kroes spoke next, she said she did not want another talk show,
> she expected Sao Paulo to deliver an agreement and a clear roadmap, with
> concrete actionable milestones. She mentioned the recently released EU
> statement on Internet policy and governance, saying she knew it would be
> hard, but we have to deliver a very clear political statement.  She tressed
> the need to globalize the IANA function, and ensure full respect for human
> rights.
> The next speaker was Dirk Brengelmann,  who stressed not trying to be too
> political, focus on laying out the markers for the way forward. (had to
> leave for another meeting)
> Representative of the government of South Africa spoke, stressing that
> they had not heard as a government what was going on yet.  The business
> person named from South Africa could not speak for the government.
> Tawfik Jelassi from the Tunisian Ministry agreed we did not need another
> talk show, need concrete actions and true multi-stakeholder
> approach.[various others made short statements, but had to rush for their
> planes.]
> Louis Pouzin made an intervention but the audio was not clear so I did not
> catch it, I will let him speak for himself.
> The meeting ended rather abruptly, I did not hear an announcement of when
> the next meeting would be, and have not heard yet from the secretariat.  I
> will seek that information now, but as you can see, there are many blanks
> in this report, my apologies for not being there in person but it was short
> notice and far away from Canada.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2014-02-26, at 11:07 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>
> Dear Louis, could you give us any report back from the meeting?
> Thank you,
> Carol
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Deirdre Williams <
> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Louis,
>> I hope that the meeting went well.
>> Glad you were there
>> Best wishes
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>> On 22 February 2014 13:45, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I received an invitation to the 1st HLC meeting in Barcelona on 24th
>>> Feb. I shall be there.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/f4f660a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From vanda at uol.com.br  Wed Feb 26 17:22:52 2014
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:22:52 -0300
Subject: [governance] Save the date notice - Civil Society Coordination
 Meeting for NetMundial
In-Reply-To: <CAEc4Ok-aUP-0tkLoaojsqvLuZbQYKYUweJ5Bh6++fGCP=+tzzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EB80980C-3077-4E53-BC0E-DAD50467A5C3@Malcolm.id.au>
 <CAEc4Ok-aUP-0tkLoaojsqvLuZbQYKYUweJ5Bh6++fGCP=+tzzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF33EF18.39AF5%vanda@uol.com.br>

I am not aware about how sponsorships will happen here for this , but
contact  Carlos Afonso, ca at rits.org.br , from here he is responsible for the
third sector for NET Mondial and IGF Brazil.
 Best to all.
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464




From:  AHM Bazlur Rahman <ceo at bnnrc.net>
Reply-To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
AHM Bazlur Rahman <ceo at bnnrc.net>
Date:  Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 0:40
To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy
Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Subject:  Re: [governance] Save the date notice - Civil Society Coordination
Meeting for NetMundial


Dear Jeremy Malcolm,
Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC)
In Bangladesh, from civil society side  we have already started preparation
for  
Road2 
Sao Paulo.

Major activities are:
1. Organize pre-consultation on  NetMundial
2. To develop a People's Charter on Internet Governance, consultation with
country wide multi-stakeholders

3. To mobilize Government for joining NetMundial


I would be very happy if you provide me travel funding for joining
NetMundial 2014.
In Bangladesh, we need your advice and support for our process.

With best wishes,




Bazlu
________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR | Chief Executive Officer |
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]
 
House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207|  Bangladesh|
Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647
Fax: 88-02-9138501 | E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net | bnnr <mailto:bnnrc at bd.drik.net>
cbd at gmail.com | 
www.bnnrc.net <http://www.bnnrc.net/>





On 26 February 2014 09:19, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:
> Please save the date for this Civil Society Coordination Meeting for
> NetMundial, a joint civil society strategy gathering independently organised
> ahead of NetMundial 2014, to be held in and all day 22 April, at a venue to be
> confirmed soon in
> Sao Paulo, Brazil.
> 
> Well-funded and well organized interest groups from within the technical and
> business communities will be advancing their agendas at the Global
> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, with the
> intent of securing outcomes that favour their perceived interests.  Civil
> society's responsibility is to ensure that these outcomes do not  conflict
> with the broader, long-term public interest.  Our challenge is therefore to be
> equally well organised as the other stakeholder  representatives, even though
> we do not enjoy the same funding and  staffing resources that they do.
> 
> This event will provide an opportunity for us to consolidate and take stock of
> the work that we have done in preparing for the meeting, with the objective of
> empowering civil society participants to present a unified and effective front
> at the meeting (as far as possible, and as consistent with our diversity).
> 
> The meeting is open only to those who identify as civil society in its wider
> sense. 
> Please register your interest in attending here:
> http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination
> 
> If you do not have any source of travel funding for NetMundial 2014 and would
> like to be considered for travel support, you can also indicate this on the
> registration page. Please note that travel support will only be given to those
> who have also registered for NetMundial 2014, and you must separately register
> for both events. 
> 
> Please note that NetMundial have the deadline of Feb, 28th for "expression of
> interest", which should be done here:
> http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression
> <http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression>
> 
> If you are already booking your ticket, please, have in mind we will also have
> an strategical dinner on April, 21st.
> 
> This meeting is a joint initiative of
> * Association for Progressive Communications - APC , Global
> * Article 19, Brazil
> * BestBits, Global
> * Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression - CELE, Argentina
> * Derechos Digitales, Chile
> * Global Partners Digital, UK
> * Institutito de Defesa do Consumidor - IDEC, Brazil
> * Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade - ITS, Brazil
> * WebWeWant, Global
> Arrangements for the meeting are being made collaboratively by a group  of
> volunteers drawn from the above organisations and networks, and you too can
> join.  If you are interested to collaborate with the organization of this
> event or even to expand Civil Society activities surrounding NetMundial,
> please reply off-list and we will  fill you in on the tasks where your input
> and assistance is needed.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org> |awk -F!
> '{print $3}'
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
> enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

____________________________________________________________ You received
this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To
be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For
all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find
the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email:
http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/68db259a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pouzin at well.com  Wed Feb 26 18:55:31 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:55:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYrZAD07kV0uXh8K95AxcoijL3DSkYZFwu_Tzu62a3hUxA@mail.gmail.com>

>From Carolina Rossini
5:07 PM (7 hours ago)

 to governance, Deirdre, Louis
Dear Louis, could you give us any report back from the meeting?
Thank you,
Carol
- - -

Yes Carol. These past two days I've been jumping from meeting to meeting,
and I am traveling tomorrow.  Stephanie's report is a wonderful help in the
meantime.

Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140227/c0c95897/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Feb 26 19:52:10 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:52:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYrZAD07kV0uXh8K95AxcoijL3DSkYZFwu_Tzu62a3hUxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYrZAD07kV0uXh8K95AxcoijL3DSkYZFwu_Tzu62a3hUxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5A96EE2C-A54B-426E-833B-CF2BDF2B0EDC@gmail.com>

I saw that. Thank you :-)
I also have read Stephanie's report 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 26, 2014, at 6:55 PM, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From Carolina Rossini
> 
> 5:07 PM (7 hours ago)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to governance, Deirdre, Louis 
> 
> Dear Louis, could you give us any report back from the meeting?
> Thank you, 
> Carol
> - - -
> 
> Yes Carol. These past two days I've been jumping from meeting to meeting, and I am traveling tomorrow.  Stephanie's report is a wonderful help in the meantime.
> 
> Louis
>   
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140226/91cc7cdb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Feb 27 04:41:30 2014
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:41:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdj+QGiUng3V+xnLFJSjaLW3aw311Y5RxwcOoceE8fvNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN5pXd8OaL6=d9Sq32E2Arbgaq43zT-CAyYWqOr_fpWhYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAcz6B=E207hBEnAit-pmNsTcUZ98Y0eq+k6vYydngwcQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <82508E6A-24D0-48F5-8EB2-C16D3C2A4E3F@mail.utoronto.ca> <CAK-FJAdj+QGiUng3V+xnLFJSjaLW3aw311Y5RxwcOoceE8fvNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTozWtNKUxdXTsA=sHK-McMe6rSJ3FwOkG8iQNPqC+9B0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks a lot, Stephanie. Any clarification on HLMC roles and workflow?
best
joana


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you :-)
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> I was not in the room, but on the phone and conference bridge, and I can
>> update you from my notes.  I am sure that Louis will have a better report,
>> but in the meantime:
>> Agenda:
>>
>> 1. Welcome message and Introduction of Participants (5 min)
>>
>> 2. Initial remarks (15 min)
>>      - H.E. Neelie Kroes - Vice President of European Commission for the
>> Digital Agenda
>>      - D. Víctor Calvo-Sotelo - Secretary of State for Telecommunications
>> and Information Society of Spain (Special Invitee)
>>      - Minister Paulo Bernardo - Minister of Communications of Brazil
>>
>> 3. Briefing and Introduction of the NETmundial structure and workflow
>> (Secretary Virgílio Almeida) (10 min)
>>     a. Background
>>     b. Objectives and expected outcomes
>>     c. Committees and interactions among them
>>     d. Content contribution process
>>     e. Synthesis paper and document drafting
>>     f.  Important dates
>>     g. HLMC roles and Agenda
>>
>> 4. Open Floor & Discussion  (40 min)
>>
>> 5. Summary and Closing Remarks (20 min)
>>
>> 1. There was a slight delay in the start of the meeting.  The Minister
>> outlined his brief from the President of Brazil, to do the conference in a
>> multistakeholder way.  He stressed that they needed to come up with
>> principles accepted by the stakeholders, and a roadmap for how to get
>> there.  Our role, as the high-level multi-stakeholder committee, would be
>> to set the political tone and foster the involvement of international
>> parties.   He went over the structure and representatives for each
>> committee (slides were promised and I will forward once I receive them).
>> The goal is to have a  reference document by mid-march
>> There will be seven languages, the UN languages plus Portugese.  During
>> the actual meeting in April, the HLMC and the Chairs of Netmundial will
>> seek approval for meeting outputs.
>> There was further encouragement to all groups to submit both expressions
>> of interest, to attend, and content submissions.  Submissions will be
>> accepted until March 8, expression of interest only until February 28 (I
>> think this is accurate).
>> Fifteen cities around the world will be connected to the conference [I
>> guess through live streaming] [my apologies if I have mis-named the persons
>> speaking, the audio was not always clear and some were speaking through an
>> interpreter, I focused on the speech and not the speaker]
>> 2.  Neelie Kroes spoke next, she said she did not want another talk show,
>> she expected Sao Paulo to deliver an agreement and a clear roadmap, with
>> concrete actionable milestones. She mentioned the recently released EU
>> statement on Internet policy and governance, saying she knew it would be
>> hard, but we have to deliver a very clear political statement.  She tressed
>> the need to globalize the IANA function, and ensure full respect for human
>> rights.
>> The next speaker was Dirk Brengelmann,  who stressed not trying to be too
>> political, focus on laying out the markers for the way forward. (had to
>> leave for another meeting)
>> Representative of the government of South Africa spoke, stressing that
>> they had not heard as a government what was going on yet.  The business
>> person named from South Africa could not speak for the government.
>> Tawfik Jelassi from the Tunisian Ministry agreed we did not need another
>> talk show, need concrete actions and true multi-stakeholder
>> approach.[various others made short statements, but had to rush for their
>> planes.]
>> Louis Pouzin made an intervention but the audio was not clear so I did
>> not catch it, I will let him speak for himself.
>> The meeting ended rather abruptly, I did not hear an announcement of when
>> the next meeting would be, and have not heard yet from the secretariat.  I
>> will seek that information now, but as you can see, there are many blanks
>> in this report, my apologies for not being there in person but it was short
>> notice and far away from Canada.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2014-02-26, at 11:07 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>
>> Dear Louis, could you give us any report back from the meeting?
>> Thank you,
>> Carol
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Deirdre Williams <
>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Louis,
>>> I hope that the meeting went well.
>>> Glad you were there
>>> Best wishes
>>> Deirdre
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 February 2014 13:45, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I received an invitation to the 1st HLC meeting in Barcelona on 24th
>>>> Feb. I shall be there.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140227/2cf9d16f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Feb 27 10:57:38 2014
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:57:38 -0300
Subject: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3z9DiJ1JOSfC89Stw4_GcxBkO6_QZ=FFpQTd4occHUrg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,


This is just a quick reminder that *pre-registrations* for the Global
Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net
Mundial) *will
close tomorrow (28/02).* Please register if you plan to attend:
http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression


Acceptance of registrations will be made public by 15/03.


The deadline for presenting *written contributions* to Net Mundial has been
extended to *08/03*. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges participants to
submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the production on
the synthesis document.


Best wishes,

Marilia


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140227/b4eae2bf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Feb 27 11:18:58 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:18:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK3z9DiJ1JOSfC89Stw4_GcxBkO6_QZ=FFpQTd4occHUrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK3z9DiJ1JOSfC89Stw4_GcxBkO6_QZ=FFpQTd4occHUrg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5J=nQUHJzL72h7FcXur-=+d+K928AxAkVcB0HWJ=S7aA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Marilia,
Thank you for the reminder.
Is it necessary to pre-register for remote participants as well?
Thanks
Deirdre


On 27 February 2014 11:57, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
> This is just a quick reminder that *pre-registrations* for the Global
> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial) *will
> close tomorrow (28/02).* Please register if you plan to attend:
> http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression
>
>
> Acceptance of registrations will be made public by 15/03.
>
>
> The deadline for presenting *written contributions* to Net Mundial has
> been extended to *08/03*. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges
> participants to submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the
> production on the synthesis document.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marilia
>
>
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
"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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140227/ab335f3e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Feb 27 11:23:10 2014
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:23:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN5J=nQUHJzL72h7FcXur-=+d+K928AxAkVcB0HWJ=S7aA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK3z9DiJ1JOSfC89Stw4_GcxBkO6_QZ=FFpQTd4occHUrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN5J=nQUHJzL72h7FcXur-=+d+K928AxAkVcB0HWJ=S7aA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqH7phkHqe26SPnWcqL5JnKp6amEWz7bMuOCcXNCSmujQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Deirdre,
Good question.
Registering for remote participation is not available yet.
The organization is working on it.
Will let u know.
best
joana




On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Marilia,
> Thank you for the reminder.
> Is it necessary to pre-register for remote participants as well?
> Thanks
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 27 February 2014 11:57, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> This is just a quick reminder that *pre-registrations* for the Global
>> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial) *will
>> close tomorrow (28/02).* Please register if you plan to attend:
>> http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression
>>
>>
>> Acceptance of registrations will be made public by 15/03.
>>
>>
>> The deadline for presenting *written contributions* to Net Mundial has
>> been extended to *08/03*. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges
>> participants to submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the
>> production on the synthesis document.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Marilia
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Marília Maciel*
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "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
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140227/eed37f01/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Elvana.THACI at coe.int  Thu Feb 27 11:30:54 2014
From: Elvana.THACI at coe.int (THACI Elvana)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:30:54 +0000
Subject: [governance] RE: Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14
 March
In-Reply-To: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <CF2786CE.55290%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <2BC8C1F8EE620E4DBF566BCF5F804CE3551EAF9F@V-Linguistix02.key.coe.int>

Dear all,

I would just like to echo Wolfgang's message by sending you the updated programme<http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/GRAZ_Programme_26_February_2014.pdf>.

Best regards,
Elvana

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
Sent: lundi 17 février 2014 09:29
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] Internet Rights Conference in Graz on 13 and 14 March

Dear all,
may I draw Your attention to a pertinent conference on Shaping the Digital Environment, Ensuring our Rights on the Internet   organized by the Council of Europe and the Austrian Chairmanship of the CoE together with the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy of the University of Graz on 13 and 14 March 2014 in Graz.

See program under: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/GRAZ_Programme_13_February-2014_online%20.pdf

Please, register under: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Config2014/default_en.asp

We would be happy to see many of You here!

Wolfgang Benedek
Prof.Dr.Wolfgang Benedek
European Training and Research Centre
on Human Rights and Democracy
of the University of Graz (UNI-ETC)
Elisabethstrasse 50B
A-8010 Graz, Austria

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140227/4f97758d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Feb 27 11:36:11 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:36:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqH7phkHqe26SPnWcqL5JnKp6amEWz7bMuOCcXNCSmujQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK3z9DiJ1JOSfC89Stw4_GcxBkO6_QZ=FFpQTd4occHUrg@mail.gmail.com>
  <CAMz5XN5J=nQUHJzL72h7FcXur-=+d+K928AxAkVcB0HWJ=S7aA@mail.gmail.com>
  <CALTAiTqH7phkHqe26SPnWcqL5JnKp6amEWz7bMuOCcXNCSmujQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1997846916-1393518971-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1456537560-@b4.c3.bise6.blackberry>

Thanks Joana 
Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel

-----Original Message-----
From: Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:23:10 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Deirdre Williams<williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Cc: Marilia Maciel<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>; Mawaki Chango<kichango at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02

Dear Deirdre,
Good question.
Registering for remote participation is not available yet.
The organization is working on it.
Will let u know.
best
joana




On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Marilia,
> Thank you for the reminder.
> Is it necessary to pre-register for remote participants as well?
> Thanks
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 27 February 2014 11:57, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> This is just a quick reminder that *pre-registrations* for the Global
>> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial) *will
>> close tomorrow (28/02).* Please register if you plan to attend:
>> http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression
>>
>>
>> Acceptance of registrations will be made public by 15/03.
>>
>>
>> The deadline for presenting *written contributions* to Net Mundial has
>> been extended to *08/03*. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges
>> participants to submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the
>> production on the synthesis document.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Marilia
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Marília Maciel*
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "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
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140227/06fe6bbc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Thu Feb 27 12:04:44 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:04:44 -0500
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTozWtNKUxdXTsA=sHK-McMe6rSJ3FwOkG8iQNPqC+9B0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYoGox5nX=Yrnr7k6_VaHGW37WLapogwtLrkjizQr2NPrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN5pXd8OaL6=d9Sq32E2Arbgaq43zT-CAyYWqOr_fpWhYw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAcz6B=E207hBEnAit-pmNsTcUZ98Y0eq+k6vYydngwcQw@mail.gmail.com> <82508E6A-24D0-48F5-8EB2-C16D3C2A4E3F@mail.utoronto.ca> <CAK-FJAdj+QGiUng3V+xnLFJSjaLW3aw311Y5RxwcOoceE8fvNA@mail.gmail.com> <CALTAiTozWtNKUxdXTsA=sHK-McMe6rSJ3FwOkG8iQNPqC+9B0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A60D7B20-B6D8-47D4-9261-C17AB87BC9AA@mail.utoronto.ca>

Not yet, we have asked for it...but so far no response.  It was quite high level and somewhat vague...and I came away with no homework assignments, which makes me rather nervous, given the lateness in the schedule.  It seems like a group focused on ratification of conference results, which may be important at the event...but not much prep work.  I invite Louis to comment, as he was in the room and I may have missed something...
cheers Stephanie
On 2014-02-27, at 4:41 AM, Joana Varon wrote:

> Thanks a lot, Stephanie. Any clarification on HLMC roles and workflow?
> best
> joana
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you :-)
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Dear all,
> I was not in the room, but on the phone and conference bridge, and I can update you from my notes.  I am sure that Louis will have a better report, but in the meantime:
> Agenda: 
> 
> 1. Welcome message and Introduction of Participants (5 min)
> 
> 2. Initial remarks (15 min)
>      - H.E. Neelie Kroes - Vice President of European Commission for the Digital Agenda
>      - D. Víctor Calvo-Sotelo - Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society of Spain (Special Invitee)
>      - Minister Paulo Bernardo - Minister of Communications of Brazil
> 
> 3. Briefing and Introduction of the NETmundial structure and workflow (Secretary Virgílio Almeida) (10 min)
>     a. Background
>     b. Objectives and expected outcomes
>     c. Committees and interactions among them
>     d. Content contribution process
>     e. Synthesis paper and document drafting
>     f.  Important dates
>     g. HLMC roles and Agenda
> 
> 4. Open Floor & Discussion  (40 min)
> 
> 5. Summary and Closing Remarks (20 min)
> 
> 1. There was a slight delay in the start of the meeting.  The Minister outlined his brief from the President of Brazil, to do the conference in a multistakeholder way.  He stressed that they needed to come up with principles accepted by the stakeholders, and a roadmap for how to get there.  Our role, as the high-level multi-stakeholder committee, would be to set the political tone and foster the involvement of international parties.   He went over the structure and representatives for each committee (slides were promised and I will forward once I receive them).  
> The goal is to have a  reference document by mid-march
> There will be seven languages, the UN languages plus Portugese.  During the actual meeting in April, the HLMC and the Chairs of Netmundial will seek approval for meeting outputs.
> There was further encouragement to all groups to submit both expressions of interest, to attend, and content submissions.  Submissions will be accepted until March 8, expression of interest only until February 28 (I think this is accurate).
> Fifteen cities around the world will be connected to the conference [I guess through live streaming] [my apologies if I have mis-named the persons speaking, the audio was not always clear and some were speaking through an interpreter, I focused on the speech and not the speaker]
> 2.  Neelie Kroes spoke next, she said she did not want another talk show, she expected Sao Paulo to deliver an agreement and a clear roadmap, with concrete actionable milestones. She mentioned the recently released EU statement on Internet policy and governance, saying she knew it would be hard, but we have to deliver a very clear political statement.  She tressed the need to globalize the IANA function, and ensure full respect for human rights.  
> The next speaker was Dirk Brengelmann,  who stressed not trying to be too political, focus on laying out the markers for the way forward. (had to leave for another meeting)
> Representative of the government of South Africa spoke, stressing that they had not heard as a government what was going on yet.  The business person named from South Africa could not speak for the government. 
> Tawfik Jelassi from the Tunisian Ministry agreed we did not need another talk show, need concrete actions and true multi-stakeholder approach.[various others made short statements, but had to rush for their planes.]
> Louis Pouzin made an intervention but the audio was not clear so I did not catch it, I will let him speak for himself. 
> The meeting ended rather abruptly, I did not hear an announcement of when the next meeting would be, and have not heard yet from the secretariat.  I will seek that information now, but as you can see, there are many blanks in this report, my apologies for not being there in person but it was short notice and far away from Canada. 
> 
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2014-02-26, at 11:07 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> 
>> Dear Louis, could you give us any report back from the meeting?
>> Thank you, 
>> Carol
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Louis,
>> I hope that the meeting went well.
>> Glad you were there
>> Best wishes
>> Deirdre
>> 
>> 
>> On 22 February 2014 13:45, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I received an invitation to the 1st HLC meeting in Barcelona on 24th Feb. I shall be there.
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> “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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140227/12b36749/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Feb 27 14:44:02 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:44:02 +1200
Subject: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqH7phkHqe26SPnWcqL5JnKp6amEWz7bMuOCcXNCSmujQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK3z9DiJ1JOSfC89Stw4_GcxBkO6_QZ=FFpQTd4occHUrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN5J=nQUHJzL72h7FcXur-=+d+K928AxAkVcB0HWJ=S7aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTqH7phkHqe26SPnWcqL5JnKp6amEWz7bMuOCcXNCSmujQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiB3PEjRiS1KuH7hDujQ8JL8ugBOaLOdoYmUYsf6fLotug@mail.gmail.com>

Whilst I have pre registered the response I got struck me as elitist and
not open unlike the traditional IGFs.

Who is the ultimate decider of who can and cannot attend? My sense is all
the energy going into this will be a pure waste of time and energy.
On 28 Feb 2014 04:23, "Joana Varon" <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Dear Deirdre,
> Good question.
> Registering for remote participation is not available yet.
> The organization is working on it.
> Will let u know.
> best
> joana
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Deirdre Williams <
> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Marilia,
>> Thank you for the reminder.
>> Is it necessary to pre-register for remote participants as well?
>> Thanks
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>> On 27 February 2014 11:57, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>> This is just a quick reminder that *pre-registrations* for the Global
>>> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial) *will
>>> close tomorrow (28/02).* Please register if you plan to attend:
>>> http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression
>>>
>>>
>>> Acceptance of registrations will be made public by 15/03.
>>>
>>>
>>> The deadline for presenting *written contributions* to Net Mundial has
>>> been extended to *08/03*. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges
>>> participants to submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the
>>> production on the synthesis document.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Marilia
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Marília Maciel*
>>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>>
>>> Researcher and Coordinator
>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>>
>>> DiploFoundation associate
>>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140228/6e65a696/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Feb 27 19:33:43 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:33:43 +1100
Subject: [governance] Thoughts welcome on proposed netmundial submission
Message-ID: <E9B8038B68F14362904192EB55D6A871@Toshiba>

Below are some words I have prepared to submit to NetMundial (acting purely as an individual) before the March 8 deadline. I have copied them to a couple of lists because I know others think similarly – and I am more than prepared to amend this and transform it into a sign-on statement if there is interest. 

I acknowledge firstly inputs from others on various lists discussing this which I have adopted. If people are interested in contributing and signing on, happy to take that on board on list or off list. But I do want a pragmatic proposal which has a good chance of being adopted, and will not include suggestions that would be counter to getting some immediate action on this.

 I appreciate there are many other thoughts on this and encourage others to make submissions direct to Netmundial outlining other solutions if they feel so inclined. But any inputs to refine this particular widely discussed suggestion are very welcome.

 This will have to be finalised for sign on, if that direction is taken, by about March 4. 

Ian Peter

DRAFT FOLLOWS

 Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model.

 This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model.

 Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence. 



ROADMAP

 This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.

 In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed.

1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria:



(a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference; 

(b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone; 

(c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone; and 

(e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."

2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.

3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders.

4. The solution must have the following characteristics


(a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks

(b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .



(c) is an inclusive model

(d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area 



END DRAFT




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140228/b3824a5e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 28 00:36:04 2014
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:36:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Thoughts welcome on proposed netmundial submission
In-Reply-To: <CALLeeaugVC3wzeiAyqZvnRkKswosHO22U7gqCMkzAo8aPfMT=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E9B8038B68F14362904192EB55D6A871@Toshiba> <CALLeeaugVC3wzeiAyqZvnRkKswosHO22U7gqCMkzAo8aPfMT=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1393565764.413.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

+1
I also support this proposal.

Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah


>________________________________
> From: Sonigitu Ekpe <soekpe at gmail.com>
>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
>Sent: Friday, 28 February 2014, 9:22
>Subject: Re: [governance] Thoughts welcome on proposed netmundial submission
>  
>
>
>+1. Very good proposal. Hope to sign on.
>
>
>Sonigitu Ekpe 
>
>Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179 
> "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" 
>
> 
>
>
>On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>Below are some words I have prepared to submit to 
NetMundial (acting purely as an individual) before the March 8 deadline. I have 
copied them to a couple of lists because I know others think similarly – and I 
am more than prepared to amend this and transform it into a sign-on statement if 
there is interest.  
>>I acknowledge firstly inputs from others on various 
lists discussing this which I have adopted. If people are interested in 
contributing and signing on, happy to take that on board on list or off list. 
But I do want a pragmatic proposal which has a good chance of being adopted, and 
will not include suggestions that would be counter to getting some immediate 
action on this. 
>> I appreciate 
there are many other thoughts on this and encourage others to make submissions 
direct to Netmundial outlining other solutions if they feel so inclined. But any 
inputs to refine this particular widely discussed suggestion are very 
welcome. 
>> This will have to be finalised 
for sign on, if that direction is taken, by about March 4.  
>>Ian Peter 
>>DRAFT FOLLOWS 
>> Roadmap (and 
principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA functions within the 
multistakeholder ICANN model. 
>> This roadmap 
concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA 
functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current 
arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder 
model. 
>> Indeed, IANA 
itself was established  in an era 
before current internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance 
institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence.  
>>  
>>ROADMAP 
>> This roadmap 
suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and 
authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate entity and 
would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of 
ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears 
to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, 
and private sector. 
>> In order to 
achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap 
is proposed. 
>>1.       ICANN should be 
requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions 
within the ICANN multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following 
criteria: 
>>  
>>(a) protection of the root zone from political or other 
improper interference;  
>>(b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and 
robustness of the administration of the root zone;  
>>(c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users 
in the administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root 
zone; and  
>>(e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for 
this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public 
interest." 
>>2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion 
with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft 
for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 
2014. 
>>3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is 
suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper 
(proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders. 
>>4. The solution must have the following 
characteristics 
>>
>>(a) offers a legal structure that is robust against 
rogue litigation attacks
>>
>>(b) is aligned with the Internet technical 
infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of 
the DNS .
>>
>> 
>>(c) is an inclusive model 
>>(d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes 
in this area  
>>  
>>END DRAFT 
>>  
>>  
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140227/85d09749/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From soekpe at gmail.com  Thu Feb 27 23:22:37 2014
From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 05:22:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] Thoughts welcome on proposed netmundial submission
In-Reply-To: <E9B8038B68F14362904192EB55D6A871@Toshiba>
References: <E9B8038B68F14362904192EB55D6A871@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CALLeeaugVC3wzeiAyqZvnRkKswosHO22U7gqCMkzAo8aPfMT=A@mail.gmail.com>

+1. Very good proposal. Hope to sign on.

Sonigitu Ekpe

Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179
 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"



On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Below are some words I have prepared to submit to NetMundial (acting
> purely as an individual) before the March 8 deadline. I have copied them to
> a couple of lists because I know others think similarly - and I am more
> than prepared to amend this and transform it into a sign-on statement if
> there is interest.
>
> I acknowledge firstly inputs from others on various lists discussing this
> which I have adopted. If people are interested in contributing and signing
> on, happy to take that on board on list or off list. But I do want a
> pragmatic proposal which has a good chance of being adopted, and will not
> include suggestions that would be counter to getting some immediate action
> on this.
>
>  I appreciate there are many other thoughts on this and encourage others
> to make submissions direct to Netmundial outlining other solutions if they
> feel so inclined. But any inputs to refine this particular widely discussed
> suggestion are very welcome.
>
>  This will have to be finalised for sign on, if that direction is taken,
> by about March 4.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> DRAFT FOLLOWS
>
>  Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former  IANA
> functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model.
>
>  This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only - the
> future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past
> discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of
> the preferred multistakeholder model.
>
>  Indeed, IANA itself was established  in an era before current internet
> governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg ICANN)
> were in existence.
>
>
>
> ROADMAP
>
>  This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary
> processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no
> longer need a separate entity and would more productively merged with
> similar functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many
> concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support
> from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector.
>
>  In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively,
> the following roadmap is proposed.
>
> 1.       ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management
> of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model,
> bearing in mind the following criteria:
>
>
>
> (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper
> interference;
>
> (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
> administration of the root zone;
>
> (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the
> administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone;
> and
>
> (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that
> is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest."
>
> 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major
> stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for
> discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014.
>
> 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside
> consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in
> consultation with major stakeholders.
>
> 4. The solution must have the following characteristics
>
>
> (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation
> attacks
>
> (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that
> supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS .
>
> (c) is an inclusive model
>
> (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area
>
>
>
> END DRAFT
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140228/8bf8c4ae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Feb 28 07:38:24 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:38:24 +0900
Subject: [governance] NETmundial update
Message-ID: <90759931-8B0B-48CC-ABD1-5D4FAE284D2B@glocom.ac.jp>

Report of the last NETmundial EMC meeting online, been there for a few days, apologies for forgetting to mention.

attached and at 
<http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/EMC-meeting-report_2002_final.pdf>

595 expressions of interest received as of the morning of Feb 27, Brazil (day to go).  Most from Latin America and Caribbean 38%.  19% N America, 17% Europe, 12% Asia, 10% Africa, 3% Oceania.  Private sector 28%, civil society 25, government 16%, academia 13%, technical community 11%, other 8%

8 contributions online so far <http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs>

Adam

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EMC-meeting-report_2002_final.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 101142 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140228/3174159d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From vanda at uol.com.br  Fri Feb 28 08:04:32 2014
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:04:32 -0300
Subject: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiB3PEjRiS1KuH7hDujQ8JL8ugBOaLOdoYmUYsf6fLotug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACpVkK3z9DiJ1JOSfC89Stw4_GcxBkO6_QZ=FFpQTd4occHUrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN5J=nQUHJzL72h7FcXur-=+d+K928AxAkVcB0HWJ=S7aA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALTAiTqH7phkHqe26SPnWcqL5JnKp6amEWz7bMuOCcXNCSmujQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiB3PEjRiS1KuH7hDujQ8JL8ugBOaLOdoYmUYsf6fLotug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF360F22.39FA2%vanda@uol.com.br>

Please send your complain to the organisation. The responsible for  civil
society is Carlos Afonso: ca at rits.org.br
Some time people did not realize the perception the registrant will have.
Thank you Salanieta for raise the point.
All the best, 
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464




From:  Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
Reply-To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
Date:  Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 16:44
To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject:  Re: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02


Whilst I have pre registered the response I got struck me as elitist and not
open unlike the traditional IGFs.

Who is the ultimate decider of who can and cannot attend? My sense is all
the energy going into this will be a pure waste of time and energy.

On 28 Feb 2014 04:23, "Joana Varon" <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
> Dear Deirdre, 
> Good question. 
> Registering for remote participation is not available yet.
> The organization is working on it.
> Will let u know. 
> best
> joana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Dear Marilia,
>> Thank you for the reminder.
>> Is it necessary to pre-register for remote participants as well?
>> Thanks
>> Deirdre
>> 
>> 
>> On 27 February 2014 11:57, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is just a quick reminder that pre-registrations for the Global
>>> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial)
>>> will close tomorrow (28/02). Please register if you plan to attend:
>>> http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Acceptance of registrations will be made public by 15/03.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The deadline for presenting written contributions to Net Mundial has been
>>> extended to 08/03. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges participants to
>>> submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the production on
>>> the synthesis document.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Marilia
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ³The 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140228/02886a76/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Feb 28 08:35:48 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:35:48 +0900
Subject: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
In-Reply-To: <CF360F22.39FA2%vanda@uol.com.br>
References: <CACpVkK3z9DiJ1JOSfC89Stw4_GcxBkO6_QZ=FFpQTd4occHUrg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN5J=nQUHJzL72h7FcXur-=+d+K928AxAkVcB0HWJ=S7aA@mail.gmail.com> <CALTAiTqH7phkHqe26SPnWcqL5JnKp6amEWz7bMuOCcXNCSmujQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiB3PEjRiS1KuH7hDujQ8JL8ugBOaLOdoYmUYsf6fLotug@mail.gmail.com> <CF360F22.39FA2%vanda@uol.com.br>
Message-ID: <038087C5-5EF0-4177-8F79-7C41D06CF33B@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Vanda, Sala:

I'm also a member of the committee as a representative of civil society.

The venue has a capacity limit of around 800. If the number of requests to attend exceeds the number of available places, the organizing committee will evaluate the expressions of interest and make selections based on trying to ensure a balance of stakeholders, representation of countries and regions. 

Some of this is covered in an FAQ, <http://netmundial.br/faq/>.  But all very rushed.  Questions help, so please ask.

Adam



On Feb 28, 2014, at 10:04 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:

> Please send your complain to the organisation. The responsible for  civil society is Carlos Afonso: ca at rits.org.br  
> Some time people did not realize the perception the registrant will have. 
> Thank you Salanieta for raise the point. 
> All the best, 
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados
> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 16:44
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
> 
> Whilst I have pre registered the response I got struck me as elitist and not open unlike the traditional IGFs.
> Who is the ultimate decider of who can and cannot attend? My sense is all the energy going into this will be a pure waste of time and energy.
> On 28 Feb 2014 04:23, "Joana Varon" <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>> Dear Deirdre, 
>> Good question. 
>> Registering for remote participation is not available yet. 
>> The organization is working on it. 
>> Will let u know. 
>> best
>> joana
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Marilia,
>>> Thank you for the reminder.
>>> Is it necessary to pre-register for remote participants as well?
>>> Thanks
>>> Deirdre
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 27 February 2014 11:57, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> This is just a quick reminder that pre-registrations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial) will close tomorrow (28/02). Please register if you plan to attend: http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression
>>>> 
>>>> Acceptance of registrations will be made public by 15/03.
>>>> 
>>>> The deadline for presenting written contributions to Net Mundial has been extended to 08/03. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges participants to submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the production on the synthesis document.
>>>> 
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Marilia
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Marília Maciel
>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>>> 
>>>> Researcher and Coordinator
>>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>>> 
>>>> DiploFoundation associate
>>>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> “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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca  Fri Feb 28 08:59:32 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:59:32 -0300
Subject: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
In-Reply-To: <CF360F22.39FA2%vanda@uol.com.br>
References: <CACpVkK3z9DiJ1JOSfC89Stw4_GcxBkO6_QZ=FFpQTd4occHUrg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN5J=nQUHJzL72h7FcXur-=+d+K928AxAkVcB0HWJ=S7aA@mail.gmail.com> <CALTAiTqH7phkHqe26SPnWcqL5JnKp6amEWz7bMuOCcXNCSmujQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiB3PEjRiS1KuH7hDujQ8JL8ugBOaLOdoYmUYsf6fLotug@mail.gmail.com> <CF360F22.39FA2%vanda@uol.com.br>
Message-ID: <53109644.7060401@cafonso.ca>

What is this???

Obviously wrong on several counts.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 02/28/2014 10:04 AM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
> Please send your complain to the organisation. The responsible for  civil
> society is Carlos Afonso: ca at rits.org.br
> Some time people did not realize the perception the registrant will have.
> Thank you Salanieta for raise the point.
> All the best,
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados
> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>
>
>
>
> From:  Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> Reply-To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> Date:  Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 16:44
> To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject:  Re: [governance] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02
>
>
> Whilst I have pre registered the response I got struck me as elitist and not
> open unlike the traditional IGFs.
>
> Who is the ultimate decider of who can and cannot attend? My sense is all
> the energy going into this will be a pure waste of time and energy.
>
> On 28 Feb 2014 04:23, "Joana Varon" <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>> Dear Deirdre,
>> Good question.
>> Registering for remote participation is not available yet.
>> The organization is working on it.
>> Will let u know.
>> best
>> joana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Dear Marilia,
>>> Thank you for the reminder.
>>> Is it necessary to pre-register for remote participants as well?
>>> Thanks
>>> Deirdre
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 February 2014 11:57, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is just a quick reminder that pre-registrations for the Global
>>>> Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial)
>>>> will close tomorrow (28/02). Please register if you plan to attend:
>>>> http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Acceptance of registrations will be made public by 15/03.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The deadline for presenting written contributions to Net Mundial has been
>>>> extended to 08/03. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges participants to
>>>> submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the production on
>>>> the synthesis document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Marilia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ³The 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> 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 pouzin at well.com  Fri Feb 28 09:04:17 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:04:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] NETmundial 2014 - Invitation to HLMC meeting in
 Barcelona.
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYpdk5nm9=AL54KW=zjRc-=aUguDtrk+fWu5vJc42HpU_A@mail.gmail.com>

*Report on the 1st meeting of the High Level Multistakeholder Committee
(HLMC) of "NETmundial" *. . .

. . . (www.netmundial.org), the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the
Future of Internet Governance that will take place in São Paulo, Brazil on
April 23-24, 2014.

Report written by Louis Pouzin, civil society member of the HLMC.
- - -

I was invited by the HLMC chairman, Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of
Communications of Brazil [1]. I flew from Paris to attend this meeting.

The attendance list (courtesy Daniel Fink) is in [2].
A man was sitting behind a name tag "Turkey".

The audio system was not working, and the air conditioning was quite noisy.
Then it was uneasy to follow conversations from the other end of the table.

Stephanie Perrin's report gives an excellent perception of the overall
content. Actually, besides usual generalities on the São Paulo Mundial, the
presentation of the organizational structure and deadlines for
contributions were simply confirmations of already published information.

One may notice that there was no development on a roadmap, even though it
had been mentioned as an objective of the present meeting.

At some point Tarek Kamel (ICANN) used the term "mondialisation" instead of
"globalization".

Daniel Sepulveda's (USA) declaration was likely a reading of the text from
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2014/221946.htm. His speech seemed to
me a bit shorter than the text, but I could recognize some statements.

As the meeting seemed approaching a conclusion I made an intervention
summarized as follows.

Principles for a future internet governance are debated in many groups of
the civil society. Even though wordings may differ the substance is
definitely converging towards a set of a dozen (more or less) principles.
For brevity I will mention a sample of the ones being presently drafted for
Net Mundial.

1- On-line users must enjoy the same human rights as they do off-line.

2- There must not be discrimination in access and contents due to criteria
such as opinion, religion, race, gender, geography, language, or economic
resources.

3- Services offered in the internet must remain equitable and neutral among
service providers, without taking unfair advantage of a dominant or
privileged position.

4- Internet availability, deployment, and service conditions must benefit
all segments of the human society, not just those enjoying richer economic
development.

5- A special effort must be engaged in order to provide the Less Developed
Countries with an equitable share of resources to participate in activities
related to worldwide internet governance.

  Louis

Attachments.

[1] invitation
[2] attendance list
- - -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140228/ffbecef7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 09 - Invitation - HLC BCN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 237466 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140228/ffbecef7/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attendance_list.rtf
Type: application/rtf
Size: 1662 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140228/ffbecef7/attachment.rtf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri Feb 28 22:02:08 2014
From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:02:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] Comunicado ISOC Peru sobre situacion de internet en
 venezuela
Message-ID: <5FF867B3-0ACD-47AF-932E-7E884260133D@alfa-redi.org>

El Internet es un instrumento de Democracia: actos de censura en su contra afectan los #ddhh

Internet es un instrumento para el ejercicio de los derechos humanos, y por ende instrumento de la democracia, nos permite el acceso a la información pública, el libre ejercicio de la libertad de culto y de credo político así como el ejercicio pleno de la libertad de expresión. Toda forma de bloqueo por razones políticas, raciales, de opción sexual, entre otros, bajo premisas de seguridad nacional, sin un adecuado proceso basado en la presunción de inocencia y el respeto irrestricto de los derechos humanos, es ajeno a la vida democrática de cualquier país.

En Venezuela:

1. Sabemos a ciencia cierta que están bloqueados a nivel de DNS por orden o amenaza del regulador (CONATEL) so pena de perder la concesión para actuar como ISP, los sites que mencionan la cotización del “dólar paralelo”, basados en una Ley de Ilícitos Cambiarios (hoy derogada), que prohibía mencionar en cualquier medio la tasa de cambio paralela. 

2. Sabemos, por palabras del mismo gobierno, que tanto en TV (eliminados de los sistemas de tv por cable), como en Internet, está bloqueado el canal colombiano de noticias NTN24.

3. Sospechamos, pero NO podemos confirmar que están bloqueados decenas de sitios de noticias, amparados en el art. 27 de la Ley de Responsabilidad en Radio, TV y Medios Electrónicos, al considerar el gobierno la información de esos site como generadores de zozobra. Hemos tratado de ubicar la información a través de los ISP pero temen suministrarla.

4. Sabemos que la infraestructura de Internet (pública y privada) está defectuosa por falta de inversión y mantenimiento, sin embargo ha crecido el número de usuarios conectados, y la cantidad de datos que éstos procesan, lo que en algunos casos genera colapsos en la red en sitios o servidores. Eso sin contar problemas como el del Táchira donde no había Internet, pero no había energía eléctrica ni agua! mas por bloquear un servidor, por que hace muchos años que en San Cristobal se va la energia electrica por horas, eso es parte de lo que los tiene molestos.

5. Buena parte del tráfico de Internet en momentos de picos de tráfico, se genera a causa de las censuras o autocensuras impuestas a los canales de TV y las emisoras de radio, causando que la gente deba acudir a Internet masivamente como único medio de información.

6. No ayuda la situación que en momentos críticos como los descritos hackers estén atacando al gobierno con denegaciones de servicio, coadyuvando a colapsar aún más la poca red que tenemos.

Siendo lo antes expuesto,  demandamos inmediato cese de acciones del gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela contra los ddhh, y en especial contra la libertad de expresión, en la forma de control de contenidos, bloqueo de sitios web, impedimento de acceso a Internet, así como todo acto que violente las libertades ciudadanas.

Lima, 28 de Febrero de 2014

Erick Iriarte
Presidente
ISOC Peru

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: comunicado ISOC.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 64925 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140228/4885f4d6/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t